Ballad Of The Revolution

Corrupt Leaders or Just the Way it is?

2008-05-03T10:53:00.000-07:00

A couple of days ago I came across David Brumer's blog (on account of South Jerusalem) and assuming it may be just the right fix for me for another Israeli point of view, I took a peek into his post about Khaled Abu Toameh, who is an Israeli Arab journalist. It was very interesting and had many points that many Palestinians had already taken into account for the failures of an effective resistance movement against the occupation. (See Rashid Khalidi.) Brumer, who is a member of The Israel Project, was impressed with Toameh's conclusions that the "Palestinian people are the victims of corrupt leadership in the West Bank and now fanatical radical Islam in Gaza. It didn’t have to be this way." Toameh's status as an Israeli Arab who is residing in East Jerusalem is meant to immediately qualify him of a very non-partisan view, and I have to say that it is very hard to argue against it since this is one voice of a Palestinian, albeit one with an Israeli citizenship (which is second-rank if you are a non-Jew). Brumer is correct in highlighting that aspect of Toameh's, but that doesn't necessarily equate that this point of view is correct altogether because of his background, and I don't believe Brumer does that either.

It has been proven that the Fatah party led by Arafat was corrupt. It saw itself estranged from the fellaheen and decided that it was time to play the politics game and get with it. But we have grown accustomed to what power does to people (and politicians): it corrupts. The Palestinians are not immune to this and neither are any other party that vies for control of a nation-state or province or even some little piece of territory. Arafat aimed to get benefits from the biggest superpower, which incidently his successor is doing right now. I guess the main point being that Arafat was a rather weak entity and grappled for something that he could hold on to so he could have some power. MERIP described it as

"[T]he weakness of the PLO after the Gulf War... The PLO accepted this deeply flawed agreement with Israel because it was weak and had little diplomatic support in the Arab world. Both Islamist radicals and local leaders in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip challenged Arafat's leadership. Yet only Arafat had the prestige and national legitimacy to conclude a negotiated agreement with Israel."

The MERIP synopsis also included that "[T]he Oslo accords contained no mechanism to block these unilateral actions [in violation of the Accords] or Israel's violations of Palestinian human and civil rights in areas under its control." Arafat had no power and his power was only as a puppet of Israel's making. So much so that he was corrupt since he had no authority to rule over the masses. He had no power to stop settlements. He was even quite draconian in his handling of security since his was very discredited by the process itself by the Islamist factions of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Joel Beinin quips that "Arafat's undemocratic practices are considered helpful in controlling opponents of the Oslo process." And could it have been a possibility that Arafat's harsh measures were somehow related to his desire to curbed Palestinian terrorism directed against Israel? As many ordinary Palestinians could attest, signing a peace treaty with Israel did not bring forth any serious discussion about East Jerusalem, refugees or even water rights. Simply put, "Signed agreements were open to endless reinterpretation, always by Israel or by the United States" as iterated by Ali Abunimah.

Toameh regrets that Arafat was unable to build any concrete services during his time and that's why the Palestinians felt the need to back Abbas since he represented some kind of change. I don't believe they elected Abbas because he was capable of bringing more stability, it was just a small changing of the guard. Not long after, we saw how paperthin Abbas' support was as Hamas swept into power, which Toameh agrees that "that any Palestinian child on the street could have told you Hamas would win the elections in January of 2006."

Of course, there's nothing generally wrong with what Toameh's says. In fact, Arafat was only guilty of what every fucking party seems to be guilty of. There is no respite from criticism from the constituents; and not to say that there is no legitimate criticism involved. Here in Ontario the economy is doing very poorly and is on the verge of becoming a "Have-Not Province" qualifying it for Federal subsidies. The McGuinty government has been accused of corruption over and over, stealing taxpayer money. And to paraphrase Jeremiah Haber of The Magnes Zionist:

"[I]f you believe that the Palestinians have been oppressed by their leaders -- I don't -- my question to you will be, so what?

It doesn't make a damn difference.

Because, you see, what the Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians, have in common is that their governments were elected in fair elections. The Palestinian elections were monitored by international observers. In each case, the people should have gotten what they deserved. If they voted the bums in, that's their headache."

Now Toameh does believe it was the Palestinian's headache to bear but I believe that the analogy is rather faulty. Neither Israel or the US is under constant pressure of an occupation. Neither Israel nor the US is under a sanctions regime or a boycott (effectively to undercut its main economy and fuel and electricity). Neither Israel nor the US has their taxes under survellience by an occupied power. While Haber does believe that accountability has to be acknowledged, and it does, the Palestinians have decided that enough was enough and they removed Fatah from power. But Haber notes again,

"the elections results overturned by outside interference. After supporting elections -- elections, I may add, that to a large extent, actually threw the corrupt bums out -- Israel arrested the elected officials that it did not like and imposed a siege on Gaza -- not because it was actually being attacked, but because the Palestinians had elected a group viewed by the US and Israel (and much of Europe), to be a terrorist organization."

Even Toameh recognises this:

"So a year later, when Hamas challenged Fatah’s power, Palestinians said to themselves, let’s give these guys a chance."

But Toameh omits the fact that this result was overturned. And Haber again lucidly points out that

"if you justify Israel's actions in the interest of Israeli security (what about Palestinian security?), you have automatically declared Palestinians territories to be, if not under occupation, than under the thumb of Israel. And therefore you have made the Israelis responsible for the governance of thsoe territories."

And that is outright true. Because of the issue of security, it should only be limited to within the recognised borders of the '67 line but Israel brought it upon itself to control the entirety of the territories, hence they are responsible for those territories. While they have no direct bearing on the attitudes and policies of the PA, the fact that it is still under the umbrella of an occupation makes autonomy a complete impossibility.

Toameh does not allude to this at all and that's where I find the problem. "And again the Palestinian people emerged as the big losers." No one could predict what would have happened if Hamas were able to govern unfettered or the Fatah was not provoked into an attempted coup to remove Hamas from power. Toameh even admits that "Hamas did prove themselves untarnished by corruption"; what could their achievements have been if they did not see an attempt on their lives? He even insists that Hamas has not been able to alleviate the advancement of Palestinian rights, statehood or improve their lives. Perhaps Toameh may have mentioned it in the lecture but Brumer makes no mention of the fact that the embargo that has Gaza starving to death. As it so happens, Israel is been urged to undo this very policy to "avert a humanitarian disaster". A recent poll had Hamas' popularity rising because of the said embargo. And Toameh is meant to conclude that this is (totally) Hamas' fault because they are unable to make life easier for Palestinians?

This would not be so odious if we had not read this reasoning over and over. The Palestinians are solely to blame for their plight because of the leaders they chose. It is the same rhetoric we hear from the powers-that-be that dictate who gets to rule whom. How many people actually know that Marwan Barghouti is possibly the biggest voice that the Palestinians have and he is prevented from ever leaving his prison, let alone run a party or provide talks between the two warring parties. As a matter of fact, we hear the same thing from the US about Iraq: the place is a mess because the Iraqis don't know how to govern and that's why the West has to do it for them. They're just backward, alien and don't know a goddam thing about democracy. All they know is clanism.

I cannot fully fault Brumer and Toameh though; he did declare that

"Nothing is likely to change with the current PA leadership. Abbas is a weak and ineffective leader who cannot leave Ramallah without the permission of an Israeli army officer, let alone rally his own people. He has never visited a refugee camp or ordinary Palestinian village. He's traipsed around Europe and the Middle East, but has done nothing to advance his people’s cause. And the more the Palestinians see America and Israel supporting Abbas, the more he is seen as a puppet and collaborator in their eyes. The West Bank is effectively ruled by gangs, thugs, and rogue militias, Mafia style, says Khaled. If it weren’t for the IDF, Hamas would topple Fatah in a heartbeat, just like they did in Gaza, with barely a struggle."

That is exactly why they are funneling funds into Abbas's pocket. They do not want Hamas to rule as they are the bad guys here. You cannot let the bad guys win: that makes for bad lessons in future. This is a precedent that is not make to see reality. It is typified by what Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy stated in an interview:

"There are conditions [for Hamas to be legitimised]: renounce violence, recognize Israel, and be willing to engage in diplomacy.

[Carter's visit] has told Hamas leaders that perhaps in Washington there are important people who are reconsidering, who are lowering the bar that will let them through the door without them having to pay what they need to pay to get the credibility of engagement with the United States."

What Satloff is incorrect at is that these conditions were met by the PLO before they were spoken to. False. It has been noted in many circles that had these conditions been demanded from the IRA or the ANC then we would still be seeing terrorism and violence in both countries respectively, and perhaps an even harsher treatment to rule over them. We should also take note of Robert Pape's theory that suicide bombers peters out when you negotiate with the resisters and pay attention to their grievances. They're not "animals" who take innocent lives gratuitously: they want to rid their land of foreign combat forces.I guess I am a little too harsh on Toameh but I figured that he needed to properly put all of this into context. It is difficult enough to govern a state, province or a nation without an outside power overlooking your every step and suggesting that this is bad for its security and that you must eliminate every portion of resistance movements that are hostile to the occupier's existence. Think about it: the US is using very repressive measures at any hint of terrorism, torturing them and sending them over to Guatanamo. Ironically, Arafat used the same methods on Hamas. Now Hamas has the tables turned and they doing what Fatah did to them back in the Oslo years when they discredited the accord to a submission to Israel. Were they wrong? Are they wrong now?

What is also missing is that Hamas has tried time and time again to accomodate Israel, urged ceasefires and attempts to give over Shilat for prisoners and even a hudna. All of this has been rebuffed by Israel. You could speculate over Hamas' desire to really make lives easier for Gazans but I didn't see Israel blowing up the wall at Rafah, nor do I see Israel sending out feelers to Hamas. They even demonised an ex-President who did such a measure. This only helps Hamas in the end and only hurts Israel. The longer they hold out, the more Hamas will search for players who will listen to them. That means Iran, Syria and even non-state entities (yes, maybe even Al-Qaeda). Ultimately, this helps Israel's rightliners, as this gives them the proper pretext to fully invade Gaza and depose of Hamas, something that a beefed up Fatah could not do. As we have it, Khaled Meshal has been on record that he will agree on the status outlined from the previous PA agreements and to commit to the borders of the 67 Green Line. Gershom Gorenberg had a very perceptive outlook on Meshal and Hamas and one that should be repeated here:

"Let me be clear: Meshaal is still stating a considerably more hardline position than that of Fatah. This isn’t an offer on which any Israeli leader could just sign. Meshaal’s stated conditions for two states falls far short of the Clinton parameters or the Geneva accords. On the other hand, pay attention: The leader of Hamas is saying that the Charter has no practical relevance. He really wishes Israel would vanish, but that’s not his political program. He’d rather take a couple pills against nausea, and accept reality."

This is possibly the most realistic analysis of the situation: Hamas has to continue its rhetoric and may still hope for the "liberation" of historic Palestine, but most of its statesmen see this as a folly and one that will only deflect them into obscurity. They know that they are under fire for results and they somewhat have to accommodate their enemy and give them de facto recognition. Isn't that just as good for now? Why do more lives have to be at risk here? Jimmy Carter did state that "as long as Hamas is not part of the solution, they are part of the problem".

Nothing will absolve the Palestinian leaders of corruption and failure to unify. But under the conditions of occupation and the scope of outside powers constantly at play with your governance, it is remarkably difficult to do the right thing by your constituents when you are living the easy life or a diplomat or an official. You live in decent dwellings while the poor farmers are being removed from their land and Hebron residents are being terrorised. The Palestinian official is aware of this but they are not under this pressure every day. Scratch that, only those that are not under threat of being imprisoned or liquidated, is not under pressure. Those who speak out are possibly languishing in a prison cell already.

But no amount of Palestinian corruption can totally absolve an occupation that has epitomised a dearth of autonomy for the Palestinians. Toameh's narrative is free of the usual vituperation but coming from his focus it is naturally a little surprising, but it really should not be. Every Palestinian is well aware of the failings of their leadership but they are also very aware that this is a vacant leadership that is propped up by the big powers to rule over them. They know they're corrupted; but do you also know that they are occupied? It is on its forty-first year; how long has Palestinian corruption been around? And here we are still scathing over the corruption while the occupation makes scant relevance. No siree.

There can really be no clear ratio on which is more to blame. The constant neglect to even mention that the Palestinians are under conditions that no other government is under is criminal and disingenuous. What should not be forgotten is that the lifelong effects of being brutalised, tortured, harrassed, displaced, distorted, ignored, and flatly called every demeaning name in the English, Hebrew, Arabic, French, German and any other language has on ordinary Palestinians who only see how bad the occupier can be.

I-Spies

2008-04-24T18:35:00.000-07:00

This past week has seen a few major dints into the Israel armory that the Jewish State has attempted (successfully) to be immune from and that is criticism of its policies vis-a-vis the United States. We need no refreshments over the "strategic" alliance between the two states: Israel is the major force that upholds US values and it is the paradigm of democracy and culture in a region of backwardness and barbarism. Concurrently, arming Israel is of great value since all its neighbours are more than willing to destroy democracy because, as Samuel Huntingon famously wrote, it is the "clash of civilisations" and Israel is the only nation that the US (and the West) can identify with, what with all its advanced technology and its superb order of governance and its sublime human rights record (err, scratch that last one.). Because the US is stuck on an ideological battle, the "evil" of Islamic fundamentalism and the terrorism tactic with which they equip themselves with, has to be dislodged, or obliterated, with Israel being the key ally to do the US bidding in that part of the world. It goes without saying that you have to omit the glaring fact that it is Israel's intransigence that is the motivating factor for much of this enmity between the Muslim world and the West.

But we have known that this alliance is rather tenuous, mainly because Israel is under the belief that its treasured seat next to the emperor is under scrutiny, not only because of the high price they pay (in tax dollars and also in weaponry and even with the higher threat of terrorism on the home shores) but because Israel feels that it can be deposed for another key player in the area (ie Iran) to do the job. Also, because of said high price, it leads many of the citizens to question said alliance and whether it would be better to distance themselves from the core factor that generates so much hostility towards the US (and the West), hence making Israel's dream of a greater expansion and a state to their liking all the more bleak. As we have also seen, Israel is not compromising on such a thing.

So what do we get? Espionage. Good old-fashioned espionage. Former CIA official Philip Giraldi blogged that Israel has leaked information about spies in the US. Yes, we recall Jonathan Pollard and as of two years ago, the famed Larry Franklin who was found guilty of spying and leaking classified information to the strategic ally. Now Giraldi comes out with a nugget:

"Now it is investigating a number of US citizens, including an individual who held very senior security positions in the Clinton and Bush White Houses."

A senior security position in both regimes? That is hardcore, juicy stuff. How many people can say that they held a high position in both governments in the past eight to nine years? Now I cannot narrow this down and I will have to rely on other sources to do so for me since I do not have the faculties to do such an exhaustive research but we will have to sit tight on whether this latest investigated will amount to another embarrassing moment for the US and its supposed ally.

What is also important to note in Giraldi's post is the fact that certain "doves" in Olmert's government leaked the information in order to thwart a possible war scenario with Syria and Iran. This is in contrast to what Eitan Haber, who was a Defense Minister's aide (under Yitzhak Rabin) claiming that the leak was to prevent Jonathan Pollard from ever getting a pardon. Now I definitely do not believe that Pollard should get by easily here, especially considering that many do believe that espionage is one of the high crimes anyone can commit (look at Scooter Libby); and consider the fact that this is meant to be a relationship "premised on true friendship". Friends don't spy on friends. That is a relationship premised on distrust. You cannot make a person believe that when you go around, sneaking at classified documents and leaking them to an official who it is not meant for because of security purposes, that this is a "true friendship". Snooping around on your significant other is frowned upon; what do call it when you do it concerning national security?

I is also for Impunity

The Washington Post carried an article related to the approval by Bush for Israel to continue their settlement expansion. Not that they needed approval in the first place but since they did have it they aim to give it a legitimacy that no one in the world has given it. It is condemned by every state (even the United States) and no nation in the world recognises Israel's annexation of the West Bank and Jerusalem. It makes you wonder how they even get away with it all even when the official US position is that Israel has to give these territories up and go back behind that '67 border, if you can even call it that.

Although the piece is littered with US denial, there can be absolutely no doubt that President Bush was the first US President to acknowledge said settlements. In fact, it even quotes Bush as to saying

"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

In effect, the settlement policy has thus been declared a success. In today's world, you do not need UN approval for anything so long as you have US approval (re: Kosovo). If you are backed (continually) by the biggest superpower today, as well as the rest of the EU and Canada and Australia (which usually is in line with whatever the US scuttles), then international law is of less importance. Think about it: you can occupy a people, you can destroy their history and claim that they never existed, you can demolish their homes for pleasure, you can torture their young and their women, you can imprison them without trial, you can bomb them until they want to be bombed again, you can threaten to inflict a bigger "holocaust", you can erect a wall that destroys the farming community and usurp the best land and water for your own illegal zealots backed by the army, and you can do it all with the approval of the purveyor of democracy and human rights in this world.

Of course it is not surprising that we were given the denials. It's more or less a speak-easy: you give tacit approval but say you are against it. The rhetoric is strong but the mettle is spineless. Why haven't we even got one concession (I do not count the removal of 50 pathetic roadblocks as a concession) when the US is meant to be applying pressure to both sides in accordance with the Annapolis agreement? In Henry Siegman's latest piece, he implies what is known by many objective analysts throughout:

"As long as Israel knows that by delaying the peace process it buys time to create facts on the ground that will prove irreversible, and that the international community will continue to indulge Israel's pretense that its desire for a two-state solution is being frustrated by the Palestinians, no new peace initiative can succeed, and the dispossession of the Palestinian people will indeed become irreversible."

Simply put, these peace processes in just another ploy to grab more land and head for the hills (to expel Palestinians). Think about it: do any of them get anywhere? Have we seen any progress since the PLO recognised Israel's right to exist back in 88? Did Oslo change a thing (in the Palestinian narrative)? Did Madrid do anything to alleviate Palestinian purgatory? What about Camp David? The only thing that seems to have changed is the fact that we now have the green light by the Bush administration to continue the belligerency. Referring back to the Post article, it quotes former Secretary of State Colin Powell and his words are an echo to many in this administration as well as previous ones and for others in the future:

"I consistently spoke against settlement growth, but as you know all I could do is talk against it," Powell said. "There would be no consequences and there still aren't."

That's right: all we can do is talk against it. Well, what good is being a representative of the US government if you aren't going to do something about it but talk? Trust me, we've all grown very tired of this talking. We seem to talk and talk about it that it gets so tedious that it becomes another exercise that we succumb to, sort of like the peace processes. What? Israel-Palestine? We revisit every issue. Balfour. Partition. Right of return. Zionism. Six-Day War. Ugh. Haven't you heard enough? Haven't you had enough? Haven't you grown weary when Israel says they will do one thing and then do the exact opposite the next week? How much construction can they approve of at the behest of Rice and Bush? Who is the superpower here?

Over at Philip Weiss's blog, he gives a few reasons that there is "light coming into our lives". I do wish that I could share his optimism but I do have to remind myself that (1) I am not as experienced in these matters as he and (2) I am also not as privileged as he is to have the cornucopia of information that he has encumbered with. In summary, Phil quotes Joel Kovel where he lays out that the "chipping away" is starting to make the Establishment crumble, and the hold they have over the discourse of the issue. The Nakba is getting more and more press (thankfully) and the book written by Walt and Mearsheimer was a major event (as well as Carter's book). Coupled with the charge that the Iraq war is attributed to many Zionists, the atmosphere gives one reason for hope.

And I do not aim to dispel this as all of this is very welcome news. After all, here in Canada, we have the first union to impose a boycott of Israel and that is BIG BIG news. The wording even says "apartheid state" and you can speculate whether that such an accusation would even have taken place were it not for Carter's infamous book.

But you have to be careful and be battle-tested. A great expose by Electronic Intifada has the pro-Israel lobby group CAMERA attempting to thwart Wikipedia from its unbiased stance and even undergoing a very calculated policy that aims to have many pro-Israel moderators managing the website's Israel-Palestine webpages. This is just another part of the Battle for the Internet that I have commented previously on. What is also revealed is a plethora of emails suggesting such an endevour. The propaganda machine is working labouriously to prevent the truth from ever coming out and they want things to go back to the way they were when Israel could do such things and have the world take it with a smile on their face because they suffered the Holocaust. It does not work in today's world of citizen's journalism where anyone with a camera phone can expose crimes. Times are tough when the web works against you and this is Israel's way of evening the playing field.

And while all this positivism is all well and good for those of us who do not bear the brunt of the occupation, people like the Hamdan family will have to find a new house to live in since their's was demolished at the hands of Israel with the IDF looking on (and arresting Jeff Halper). It is good to talk and have open discussions about all of this but what about the people of B'ilin who witnessed a historic Supreme Court decision to re-route the separation wall, only for it to be unmoved eight months later. Akiva Eldar's article also noted that "three other places in the West Bank where the High Court of Justice has ordered" a re-routing has not been altered at all: in the Alfei Menashe region, in Tzofin (Azoun), and Hashmonaim (Na'alin). I'm not even touching the subject of Gaza.

Without the adequate pressure, this is the perfect staging for Israel to continue its spying and its settlement expansion and its impunity. Colin Powell may feel that its enough to speak out against it; but is that really sufficient when there is so much at stake here? All of this talking is too narrow and pathetically hollow. It's no wonder that so many are disheartened by this when all they see is the same old thing.

The Way to J Street

2008-04-17T18:58:00.001-07:00

Because of the way the system has been imposed, and for what seems like an eternity, we have been tied down to the same old tired and strung out "peace processes" that has many who are seeking a just solution to perhaps the biggest conflict in contemporary society today, left feeling jaded about the whole discord of Israelis and Palestinians. We have heard it from the most weary (by that I mean the passive normal citizen) that there is no peaceful solution to this friction and that the only way to ever get some rest is to nuke it or just kill off one group (mostly the belligerent Arabs who don't know their place in this world). I distinctly remember a co-worker of mine, when he caught a glimpse of the title of a book I was reading, called Middle East Illusions: Including Peace in the Middle East? Reflections on Justice and Nationhood (by Noam Chomsky), objected that there will never be any peace in that tumultuous region and that they have been fighting for centuries and they will continue that path until they all wind up killing each other (Note: he only caught the subtitle, not the header.). Of course not one to back down, I contended that that attitude was rather defeatist and also a little misguided since history is filled with conflagrations that is not solely within the Middle East and that he omitted the glaring fact that the Orient (in the region in question) has been under the aegis of one empire to another that egged on civil wars. The point was over his (non scholar) head as he attested that it is a lost cause and that we should not expend any more energy on a people that is only going to implode.

Is he right? As of this point in time, he is not but who knows what the future holds. But we are only able to shape what we see before us today and we have to try to avoid such cataclysms that has dire consequences for the entire world's population. While my co-worker can direct our attention to the back-and-forth bombings in Gaza as proof of this, he is only simplifying a narrative that is too complex to be fit into a sound byte or a two-minute news blurb on television. Right now, we barely have any coverage on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I barely even noticed anything on the Canadian news hub about an ex-President's visit with a leader of Hamas. Now it may not seem to be big news to Canadians but this is a major step towards a comprehensive dialogue that might bridge the gap between the occupier and the occupied. But how is my co-worker meant to demur on this latest act without even knowing that it occurred?

It comes as no surprise that this step by Jimmy Carter is being brandished a no-no by many who claim to be supportive of peace between the two parties in the conflict. As a matter of fact, Barack Obama lambasted President Carter for meeting with Khaled Meshaal, inculcating us that Hamas is "not a state" and that it is a "terrorist organisation". To double it up, Obama emphatically stated (yet again) that he would never meet with Hamas unless it recognises Israel, blah blah blah. The same old tired rhetoric that we have been imbibed with for decades now. Terrorists this, Israel's security that. Not a damned thing has changed (except for those pretty settlements in the West Bank), no matter how many times Obama stresses that he is for it.

So what of it? What are we to do now since this power disparity has been so entrenched that we have been unable to move the boot of Israel from the Palestinians' necks? The (true) left has been applying their voice but they are largely ignored because, as Norman Finkelstein calmly stated it (when Tony Judt labeled him as such), it is the "loonie left" that advocates the position that Israel should give up its territories and its annexations for the purpose of achieving peace and normalisation with its neighbours. And because the media has been couched with the bigwigs of philanthropy that finds their "donations" into the favoured candidates who confess to be "pro-Israel", we have been moved rightward and that the only effective opposition that they afford the time to is one that is "centrist" or even slightly right-of-centre. The right-wing has so demonised the left as being supporters of communism that the dissidence is largely deflected onto the alternative media. What counts for skeptical journalism these days? After all, we have had over three months after Annapolis and the West Bank is in a shambles (for the Palestinians); Hebron is under siege by more and more settlers; the wall has not moved an inch; the checkpoints remain intact and normal Palestinian life is rather abysmal compared to their Israeli counterparts IN THE WEST BANK. Mats Svensson describes the disconnect:

"Ma'ale Adumim [a settlement with 28 000 settlers], which previously did not exist in our modern history, is soon completed. People live there with access to water, swimming pools, olive groves outside the window, schools, clinics and perhaps most importantly--access to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv just 60 minutes away. Many live in Ma'ale Adumim and work in Tel Aviv. It is cheaper that way, because the land is free."

These illegal usurpers are living the high life on bulldozed Palestinian land and what is a pro-Israel supporter to do? Compare this leisure to the horror stories of Palestinian life where they are held at checkpoints for hours and hours and sometimes are not even let through. Is this the life that they have to look forward to? Where is the sense of outrage that this is no acceptable as applicable to human rights, something that we have been drunk on ever since the Tibetan outrage and the urge to boycott the Beijing Olympics? You would think that occupations would be the du jour of today but I guess if you're a Palestinian, you do not deserve the recognition that Tibetans are warranted.

As we talk and talk, Israel just continues to approve more housing, effectively shutting off any peace proposal for a two-state solution. Many will say that this was the point all along and who can say that they are wrong here? Having been an espoused anti-Zionist, it has always been affirmed within me that Israel's leaders are not content with what they have, hence the refusal for a constitution or even final borders, and are willing to sacrifice anything to get what they want (as much land as possible). This only evokes David Ben-Gurion's words back when European Jews were being slaughtered at a massive scale by the rise of the Nazi party:

"If I knew that it was possible to save all the children in Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second - because we face not only the reckoning of those children, but the historical reckoning of the Jewish people." [One Palestine, Complete pg 394]

That was the price they were willing to pay for their "Jewish homeland"; they were willing to tolerate the most odious of statesmen just to achieve their goal. It is no different today: why we have an ex-Prime Minister and current leader of the Likud party boasting that Israel has benefited greatly from the 9/11 attacks. This puts the Christopher Ketcham story into greater perspective.

Again, where is the outrage? Where is the anger? Or more importantly, where is the coverage? (Incidentally, it cannot be ignored that a PNAC paper, called the "Clean Break" Plan, authored by the biggest neoconservatives we have grown to know and love was written for Netanyahu when he was in office.)

Well some people have had enough of the monopoly that the likes of AIPAC have had over foreign policy (and if you doubt that just glimpse at Walt and Mearsheimer's best-seller). The campaign of smears and kowtowing and bribery, along with the backing of every failed initiative that only prolongs the agony for Israel's citizens and its neighbours, is getting too tiresome and it is getting old. The lynching of Carter has not worked and his book is still regarded very highly. Walt and Mearsheimer have been blacklisted but they still receive an audience and the apartheid analogy is gaining credence and even getting into a tuffle at the University of Toronto (over freedom of speech and so forth). Zionism, as has been revealed, is on the wane and Israel is of less importance to the younger Jews in the Diaspora and some do see their hardline stance in the negative.

Capitalising on this is the new lobby, named J Street. Now this new organisation is getting coverage; from Mother Jones, to the Washington Post, to Jim Lobe at IPS, and its making headway in the blogosphere, mainly from the Jewish circles such as Philip Weiss, Richard Silverstein, Dan Fleshler and of course the co-founder of the group Daniel Levy. This is exciting but you do have to try to reserve yourself. This new group aims to be a counterpoint to the disastrous legacy that has conflated Jewish into one pool that to be pro-Israel is to be supportive of every aggressive action that testifies to Israel's staunch stance on democracy. Not only that, it also will do what other liberal Jewish groups have been unable to do and that is back candidates in office or attempt to delegitamise a candidate that is seen as having a deleterious record on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Here is J Street:

"Neoconservative, right-wing Jewish leaders and radical Christian Zionists have turned their definition of “pro-Israel” into a driving force in the American political process... These voices do not…represent the mainstream of American Jews or the broader community that cares about Israel or American interests in the Middle East. Their efforts have skewed American policy, undermined Israeli and American interests, and constrained the domestic political and public debate about American foreign policy.

It is time for the mainstream of Americans–Jews and others–to establish a bold, political voice that advocates for the best interests of the U.S. and Israel, including a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the 1967 borders with agreed reciprocal land swaps, and for American policy that will lead to real security for Israelis, Americans and the entire Middle East."

Is there a call for rejoice? I would call for one. It is well past time that another group would rise up and challenge the narrative here. J Street may be just the group to do that and you would have to agree that this is probably the best timing possible. The AIPAC hold is getting shaky and J Street might just be able to swoop where AIPAC is weakening. In addition, AIPAC has made plenty of fodder in past campaigns and J Street has a member by the name of Howard Dean, who has felt the wrath of AIPAC when he called for a more "balanced" approach to the I-P conflict which got him in the doghouse. Others who are tired of AIPAC's hegemony might lean towards J Street and take on the power of the lobby. In fact, the members are rather presitigous:
<DIV>
"There are of course leaders of the main American Jewish peace groups. There are rabbis and academics. But most important there are heavy hitter political donors (Alan Solomont), policy wonks (Rob Malley), U.S. ambassadors to Israel (Samuel Lewis), high level political operatives (Eli Pariser of Moveon), Hollywood liberals (Robert Greenwald), business leaders, George Soros’ top aide (Morton Halperin), and even a former Republican senator (Lincoln Chafee) and former Congressman (Tom Downey). The major political donors and business leaders are critical to provide the funding necessary to have an impact on political campaigns." [Quoted from Richard Silverstein's blog]

The other founding member Jeremy Ben-Ami stated that

"American voices... from the far Right... have claimed that the only way to be pro-Israel is to support military responses to political problems, to refuse to engage one's adversaries in dialogue and to put off the day of reckoning when hard compromises will be required to achieve a peaceful and secure future for Israel and the entire Middle East.

These are not the kind of smart, tough views that serve the long-term interests of the state of Israel, of the United States – or frankly, the American Jewish community.

Voices of reason need to reclaim what it means to be pro-Israel and to establish in American political discourse that Israel's core security interest is to achieve a negotiated two-state solution and to define once and for all permanent, internationally recognized borders."

In the end it really is a matter of who can best fit the pro-Israel mark. Is it going to be the doves or the hawks? As of today, we are seeing each Presidential candidate (and primary candidate) effectively out-hawking each other on the Israel question in order to fit the "pro-Israel" description. Gershom Gorenberg analysed this back in January:

"Being pro-Israel does not require backing the most bellicose possible Israeli position, anymore than being "pro-American" requires backing the war in Iraq.

To be pro-Israel certainly doesn't mean basing foreign policy on the alleged conflict of civilizations; the whole West locked in combat with the Islamic world.

Being pro-Israel certainly doesn't mean standing in the way of peace negotiations with Syria... support for Israel does not mean support for West Bank settlement, for the Whole Land of Israel, for endless occupation. The sane, mainstream Zionist vision was and is of a democratic state with a Jewish majority, with full rights for all citizens, a country living at peace with its neighbors. (That's what the country's declaration of independence says.) Rule over the disenfranchised Palestinians of the West Bank undermines democracy. Every additional settler makes withdrawal more difficult." {Emphasis mine]

Those who see that there is a price to pay for Israel's bellicose rule of Palestinians are trying to take back the reigns and make those who really support a Jewish state to take a step back and have a long hard look at where all of this is headed. Ehud Olmert famously said that unless there is a two-state solution that the Jewish state is in danger. Apparently others who do want Israel to continue to exist see it this way too because the longer we accept Israel's accelerating expropriation, the closer we get to facing a one-state battle (which I don't mind at all but could spark alarms for Zionists and post-Zionists out there).

The most common analogy I have encountered is the "drunk driver" analogy: you do not let friends drive drunk, so you cannot let Israel do something harmful that might end up killing not only those around it, but also itself. You do not urge them on or give them the keys. This is how many Jewish liberals are depicting this fight. AIPAC and other Christian Zionists are fueling the fire that is only making things worse for the world (remember that all roads lead to Jerusalem, which is occupied). J Street is hoping to be that guidance that would take the keys away from Israel and start telling them that this is not the way to get home. What is J Street's position?

"J Street calls for territorial compromises with the Palestinians based largely on the 1967 borders with reciprocal land swaps and the division of Jerusalem. The group also favors strong U.S. support for Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations and direct, high-level U.S. talks with Iran to address all issues of mutual concern, including ending Iranian opposition to Arab-Israeli peace efforts and its support for armed anti-Israel groups in Palestine and Lebanon."

Even though J Street is not going to be the saviour, it can be a major cog in the machine that ends up driving Israel back behind the Green Line. It is possible to apply pressure to Israel and see rewards. Eisenhower was successful and even President Carter was able to sign a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt (who both ironically starve the Gazans). Israel's elite still does not want a repeat of those two episodes but many in the US (and in Israel) are starting to see that the current policy is bankrupt and it is a failure, so it's time to start something new (or start actually listening to the Palestinians).

I wholly support this initiave and I urge others to back it. Support it, send out the word, email others about it and even donate. You do not have to be Jewish to do so despite the fact that it is a Jewish group. It is they who have so much at stake at losing support for Israel's security and peace. Although I am a strong supporter of Palestinian rights and am rather ambivalent about the whole project considering it is a lobby that is meant to strengthen ties to Israel (yet again), it is also one lobby that is openly stating the word "occupation" and (genuine) support for a Palestinian state. Daniel Levy is no slouch and he honest about his intentions of a two-state solution. And with all the support from so many Jewish liberals, it is tough not to support the cause.

My only hope is that the Palestinian voice is not lost in all of this. But J Street seems to be the only major campaigner who has a strong enough voice to voice it for them in the forum of the US.

Calling a Spade a Spade

2008-04-06T10:08:00.000-07:00

We have to be honest with ourselves here and let go of all the hyperbole that seems to be enmeshed when we talk about the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's difficult to separate our emotional ties to the region whether you are Jewish or an Arab because we have been told over and over that the bitter battle between Israel and Palestine is what drives many of enmities towards the Western nations and the attitudes that fuels the terrorism and "fundamentalism" that get bracketed into the absurd "clash of civilisations" that we find ourselves struggling with in our post-Soviet Union stateground. But in order for us to try to move ahead into anything meaningful, sometimes we do have to detach what we feel is so important because it may hinder what is so appallingly obvious to one who is less tied to the two parties to the conflict. We have so many casting a huge role in the US who have very strong affiliations with the Israeli front that it is very hard to picture them ever having a pragmatic approach as relates to what could benefit both the Israelis and the Palestinians: because if we believe that we can finally put an end to this, both sides have to feel that justice has prevailed in any negotiated solution, and that also means talking about the topics that matter to the Palestinians (East Jerusalem, settlements, the wall, checkpoints, water, etc.) because whether Israelis and its supporters like it or not, their security is intertwined with the security of the Palestinians.

Now where we are at, we are currently a third of a year of post-Annapolis, and still we are not only stuck at another impasse, we are seeing two steps backwards every time we think that we are going forward. It's a terrible affliction that we are inured with as we have come to expect this sort of backdrop of failed solutions and talks when these two parties come to the table to speak to one another (with the US as the mediator). And unfortunately, each time we rerun this episode, more violence and more deaths are inevitable, and the aftermath could prove more disastrous than the last intifada that saw Sharon take an iron fist approach to the security situation. Only over a month ago, we saw some horrific images coming from the Gaza Strip as Israel attempted to strong-arm their way to finally put an end to rockets being fired into Israeli proper, only to see more fatalities and more Israelis dead. During the same week of escalation, we witnessed a shooting spree from a Palestinian who was a citizen of Israel. The reprisal from the fanatics have been very elementary as they raided the offender's family's house and took their rage out on them. We have read reports in Bethlehem that took out four Palestinians in "execution style" can be viewed as symptoms that lead to a bigger backlash against each other, with more and more dead proving even more catastrophic for the Palestinians considering the disparity we have seen in the numbers over the decades.

But what I'd like to revert back to is that this is all nothing new. We have been through this road before and we have had warnings from the intellectuals, the negotiators and the academics that this is the path that we are taking when we do not pressure the bigger party to concede something tangible so they can show they are serious about their security and peace. Yes, I'm talking about pressuring Israel, and to be frank, we all know that if they wanted a concrete peace proposal to work out that they would have done so already. They have all the power here and it is they who needs to show that they are willing to work with the weaker opposition who have been trying to show the world that they have the right to self-determination also. Autonomy has been dealt around rather passively with total disregard for international law and yet we are still at the same stumbling bloc when it comes to the Palestinians affirmation for their right to determine their own fate. Naturally I will hear the typical response that the PA has done little to nothing to curb terrorism from the West Bank and Gaza. But let's not be myopic here: it is quite difficult to effectively curtail every terrorist attack. Washington and Tel Aviv, will all their might and intelligence at their disposal are still struggling with it. Iraq is a haven of terrorism; Afghanistan is run by warlords and yet the US can not "pacify" the insurgencies. Colombia is equipped with an exorbitant military to fight the FARC and yet they do not make any ground in silencing the guerrillas. Now, you have these nations who trade mightily with their beefed up military budget and they are unable to quell terrorism in Iraq, the West Bank and Colombia; you expect the Palestinians who have little to nothing in their police force to police their own people and tell them that they have no reason to fight back and stop this nonsense of martyrdom because it only digs a deeper hole for the Palestinians? I highly doubt that. Let's be sensible about this: Jimmy Carter stated it in his book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid that you can never guarantee total security. Crimes will happen and under an occupation, it is practically mandatory that a resistance will occur. What haven't we learned from the past in places like Algeria, India, Northern Ireland and Iraq?

Right now, Israel has no incentive to strive for a peace with the Palestinians. We know that they do not want to give up any part of Jerusalem, so why cave in and lose East Jerusalem so more Palestinians can inhabit the capital? Ehud Olmert has not changed his spots today from when he was the mayor of Jerusalem: he continues to approve more and more construction around the settlements in "Greater Jerusalem" and plans to never negotiate over the ancient city. We also know that they do not want to give up any part of the West Bank that they deem worthy, hence why they continue to litter it with more Israeli settlers and surround Hebron with more zealouts to crowd out the Palestinians. There is no reason why they should concede anything when they can just populate the hills with more Jews and don't give a shit about international law or UN Resolutions. They are seeing a maximalist dream here that not even Ben-Gurion was willing to undertake when Israel won the Six-Day War: they are realising the Eretz Israel on Judea and Sumaria. There is no West Bank for these people. There is no Palestinian for these people. There is no Palestine. As far as they are concerned, it is only meant for the Jews and without any state to oppose this, what is going to stop them from doing what they feel is God's plan?

It's tough to separate what you feel is your rightful duty to your religion and to what the law says you must obey: there is no separation for most of these believers and they have no desire to ever give up the Golan and Judea and Sumaria. They already comprised on Jordan and the Gaza Strip (well, some of them about Gaza anyways) so they have already comprised on their part, why aren't the Palestinians doing their part by just going to Jordan which is their "Palestinian" state? What could make them see it this way? Sure, they were the indigenous people but why can't they just leave for the greater good of the cosmpolitan state in the Middle East? They had no ties to the land and were only savages and nomads; Israelites cultivated the desert and made it into the paradise we now see.

Of course it is preposterous to make a Palestinian believe that they have no right to the land and the only future they have to look forward to is the only that sees them removed from their homes for a Jew to live in. We go back and forth on this and there are many books that have dealt with these issues about who has the right to live here and which truth trumps the other: but that misses the point entirely as both have seen themselves are the rightful owner of this historic piece of land. Both will have to live with each other or else face oblivion as they will surely attempt to destroy one another in order to gain total control of the land. Tony Karon said it earlier that the Israelis "ignored the elephant in the room: the Palestinians." And yes, the Palestinians to lesser extent ignore the Israelis' desire to live on their biblical land. Both were very guilty of ignoring the case of the other and now we are stuck on rivaling nationalisms. It's important for everyone to realise that we have come sixty years since the birth of Israel, and since then there has been a rise in Palestinian nationalism. Calling them a non-entity only figures in colonialism and ignorance of pragmatism. Whether or not Arabs called themselves Palestinian previous to Israel's existence is a non-starter: they call themselves that now just as Israelis are now Israelis and not Sephardic or Ashkenazi Jews. It's time to accept that they want to live in this part of the world and not a neighbouring state or in a refugee camp.

But why haven't they accepted it? Some simply choose to believe that they are the chosen ones and it is hard to remove the ideology that motors so many in the region. But luckily they are on the fringes; most do want to see some kind of peace and settlement over the whole land issue. So why still nothing after Annapolis?

Because Israel has no real consequence for doing what they do best: disregard international law and rule with impugnity. The occupation may be costly, but it is a cost they are willing to pay for their constituents who want the whole of the land. Israel has no constitution for the sole purpose of discriminating against non-Jews in their country. It has no final borders so which Israel is Hamas or the Palestinians meant to recognise? It is unwilling to do anything under the Road Map or Annapolis or Oslo in the past or Camp David or any of these bogus peace talks that have an industry of their own. There's alot of money to be had over all of this and there is plenty of time for Israel to sit tight and do nothing over Condoleezza's minor threats over their "roadblocks" and "checkpoints". We get 50 roadblocks removed when there is over 550 checkpoints in the West Bank: some concession. We get more approved housing in occupied land that is owned by Palestinians and this is how you act when you are serious about having a peace with your neighbour? You bulldoze their houses and build your own over its ruins and steal their water for your swimming pools. That's great relations between two parties negotiating a peace, no? You release prisoners who were at the end of their term and yet you continue to imprison 11000 Palestinians who go without trial and who have been documented to have been tortured. Wow, some concession. What else can you show that you are serious about peace? Bomb them? Shoot them in the back of their heads? Arrest your own citizens when they protest against your violations of the Geneva Convention? You do all of this for the love of the land, correct?

Now you do not want to get cynical but nothing motivates Israel to ever concede anything that they do not want to. Militarism is a good lark these days and without an occupation to take care of, what else would you spend all those tax dollars at (American tax dollars)? It would be hard to find a reason for existence when your whole bane of existence has been aggression and deterrence against your neighbours attacking you. It would be hard to justify that nuclear arsenal and that hearty budget of your's when all you do is police your own citizens (which might be needed if you read Bernard Avishai's warning of an internal intifada).

Without a strong nation to stop Israel, they will only do what they have done in their sixty years of existence: whatever they want. They know they have strong backing in the US. What is that joke again:

"Why doesn't Israel want to be the 51st state of the US? Then it will only have 2 senators to speak for them."

The senate is stuffed with money from the Lobby and they know who pays their salaries. You might think it is our citizens but they know who has the power to fund their campaign. Obama knows how badly it can feel when you say things that they do not agree with. And the list of those who have fallen because they said something of a nature that might not be so pro-Israel is long, one that even took the scalp of Bush's father. The EU has the power to turn the tide but two of their leaders have expressed so much concern for Israel's security that it is hard to see where this leverage for the Palestinians will be. Costa Rica? Ecuador? Not exactly the powerhouses that can shape foreign policy. Israel can do what it pleases: thumb its nose over the UN, abuse US aid whenever it feels the need to do so and act like a rogue state. What country can bomb a US ship and get away with it? What country can have supporters of the 9/11 attack and have no investigation over it? What country can have two high profile AIPAC members be indicted over espionage against an ally and be buried in the back pages of the press and independent websites? What country can continue to occupy a people, subjugate it with walls, checkpoints, barriers, blockades, separate road systems, torture them, kill their children, demonise them as terrorists and gets international sanction for it?

You betcha: it's Israel. And who is going to try to stop them from doing all of this to the Palestinians, to the Syrians, to the Lebanese? Right now we are still unready for any change because no Western nation is going to stand up against Israel who has very powerful supporters in most Western states. In Canada, the investigation over the death of a Canadian military personnel during the Lebanon War in 06 is still inconclusive. Yet the Prime Minister still does not want anything to do with it and even asks why Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener was even in the area when he was there for UNIFIL, part of a peacekeeper unit. Harper had no concern for his own citizen and wanted to exonerate Israel from the blame of Hess-von Kruedener's death. How backward do we have it when Israel kills your own citizens and you want to askew the truth into something that would avoid Israel being a bad guy?

Tony Blair has been quoted that 70 percent of the violence towards the West can be attributed to the roots of the Israel-Palestine conflict. With such a huge stake in the matter, you would think that most Western nations have a genuine reason to back a proposal that would be acceptable to all parties (as close as we can get to one anyway) but yet we do not have that. You would think that they have no desire for a safer world at all. We know that that is not true: they just want a world where they can have their cake and eat it too. Most statesman are like that, no? Israel is no different. They want what they believe is rightfully their's and they want it with security too. They are willing to compromise the latter in order to achieve the former and they have seen no real price to pay for such an ideology. The Palestinians have their resistance movements that aims to make Israel pay for the occupation but that is merely a nuisance that they just can't put down. It's been forty one years of occupation, they can wait another forty one until the world realises that this policy is bankrupt and it's detrimental to Israel's democracy and security.

We do learn from history and this occupation will not last. It would be better for everyone to remove their ties to the region and take a look at the bigger picture here and say that enough is enough and make both parties sit down and be serious about a solution. That means bringing Israel in and making them concede something as well as making the Palestinians concede something too. If not then the bloodening will widen and we may see more horrific episodes that sees not only Israelis and Palestinians dying but other internationals who want to see peace happen within their lifetime. But this can only happen if Israel is being made to pay a price for their continued oppression. Without it, they will be free to obtain a maximalist view of the conflict.

Note: I cited an article by Henry Siegman published in the London Review of Books. It is a very informative piece that is based on three books regarding the strive for settlements and making fait accompli on the West Bank. Siegman has no qualms about who to blame on the accelerating drive for settlements even if both the books he reviews seem to exculpate Israel's elite from the policy of colonising Palestinian land. Siegman writes:

"These books give the lie to the carefully cultivated narrative that has sustained the occupation. According to that narrative, the government of Israel offered peace to the Palestinians and to its Arab neighbours in the aftermath of the war of 1967 if they would agree to recognise the Jewish state... the Arab world responded with ‘the three “no”s of Khartoum’... Israel no choice but to continue to occupy Palestinian lands [for security reasons (JA)].

The story is a lie. Israel’s military and political leaders never had any intention of returning the West Bank and Gaza to their Arab residents. The cabinet’s offer to withdraw from Arab land was addressed specifically to Egypt and Syria, not to Jordan or the Palestinians in the territories. The cabinet’s formal resolution to return the Sinai and the Golan in June 1967 said nothing about the West Bank, and referred to Gaza as ‘fully within the territory of the state of Israel’.

The decision to retain control of the territories was taken days after the end of the 1967 war, and was not a response to Palestinian terrorism, or even to Palestinian rejection of Israel’s legitimacy. Zertal and Eldar cite a report by Mossad officials, prepared at the request of the IDF’s intelligence division and presented to the IDF on 14 June 1967, which found that ‘the vast majority of West Bank leaders, including the most extreme among them, are prepared at this time to reach a permanent peace agreement’ on the basis of ‘an independent existence of Palestine’ without an army. The report was marked top secret, and buried."

I do not wish to see the great work of Gorenberg and Eldar to be diminished as they have been priceless in their journalism about Israel's settlement program but I have read Gorenberg's book and found that it did little to blame the policy on Israel's leaders and basically said it was an anarchist movement that moved these settlers into doing what they do. That is preposterous as they have had state approval since the beginning and even some of Gorenberg's writing state it so. Siegman also sees this and writes it as straightforward as he sees it, calling a spade a spade.

There is no security reason for the settlements:

"[The] overwhelming majority of them actually created new security problems, if only because vast military and intelligence resources had to be diverted to their defence. The settlements have also enraged the Palestinians, whose land has been stolen to make room for them – this, too, has done nothing to increase Israel’s security."

In fact, coupled with a nice post by Dan Fleshler at his blog, that even checkpoints are unnecessary from a security point of view. As Fleshler says,

"the VAST MAJORITY OF [checkpoints] WHICH ARE THERE TO MAKE LIFE EASIER FOR ISRAELI SETTLERS, and have nothing to do with protecting anyone in Israel proper."

This is how worthy these settlements are to Israel: they want to pay the price to keep this enterprise alive and kicking and even screaming and killing. Siegman quotes a member of Ta'ayush from his book Dark Hope: Working for Peace in Israel and Palestine David Shulman, who wrote:

"many destructive individuals have found a haven, complete with ideological legitimation, within the settlement enterprise. Here, in places like Chavat Maon, Itamar, Tapuach and Hebron, they have, in effect, unfettered freedom to terrorise the local Palestinian population; to attack, shoot, injure, sometimes kill – all in the name of the alleged sanctity of the land and of the Jews’ exclusive right to it."

Without any pressure from its main backer the US, or even any economic consequence from its main trader the EU, we are left with this cycle of non-starters and more land theft by these "hilltop youths" that steal more Palestinian land. They want to be seen as pioneers when they are really helping erase another people from this world.

The Battle for the Internet

2008-03-19T20:05:00.000-07:00

In today's age of the world wide web, information can be exchanged at the speed of light. We are filled with plenty of mediums for journalism and now that the internet has exploded into phenomenon that we now take for granted, it's getting more and more difficult for the truth to be suppressed. Back in the days of newspapers and television broadcasts, you had editors and CEOs to answer to and with the way the mutlinationals are currently falling under the rubric of capitalist cronyism, we only get the pathetic middle-of-the-road-offend-no-one (or more to the point, offend none of your advertisers and funders) that aims to pass as hard-nosed journalism. Although the days of Bob Woodward and Seymour Hersh exposing fiascos, atrocities and corruption are dwindling away being taken over by James Gannon-nites and sleazy spin stories of how the "surge is working", the internet is a great platform for many of today's truthseekers to find an audience with the alternative media. While you still get the odd piece in the paper that might reveal a nugget of truth, lately we have been bombarded (no pun intended with the Iraq war) with propaganda that pleases the good men in the seats of power and prestige. The internet is alot harder to police because it is open to anyone who has a computer and an internet connection. Even with that handicap where we cannot speak to those too poor to voice their struggle on the web, you have many brave journalists covering their story because it is in the world's interest to know of how other people are being treated. And the Israel-Palestine conflict is of vast importance, with all the implications and degrees that relate to many in the West and the Diaspora of Jews and Palestinians together. Sitting in front of the TV won't get you to know what life is like in the Occupied Territories and that's the beauty of the internet. We are connected to those who are too desperate to even speak out. (But thankfully, a few do make it with their blogs: namely Philip Rizk, Bernard Avishai, Anna Baltzer, Laila El-Haddad and even the groundbreaking blog of Gaza and Sderot friends.)

Now the coverage is getting too troubling for little old Israel. I say old because it is nearing its sixtieth anniversary and what a historic achievement it is. To this day, I don't think many are aware of how Israel camw to being and that's a real shame. Americans are well aware of the birth of their nation: on the ruins of Natives and their corpses. Israel are still unwilling to let the nugget of truth that they cleansed Palestine and made refugees out of the indigenous people. But the iron wall is starting to crack in some societies: in Australia, there is a split in Labour over the celebration of Israel's birth sixty years on. Antony Loewenstein covers it extensively. Here's the precise:

"A bipartisan motion congratulating Israel on 60 years of statehood has provoked division in federal Labor, with one government MP threatening to boycott the vote and union heavyweights accusing the Jewish state of racism and ethnic cleansing.

The parliamentary motion is due to be passed by MPs today, commemorating 60 years of friendship between Australia and Israel.

The motion provoked a clash between Kevin Rudd and Labor MP Julia Irwin yesterday after Ms Irwin questioned why the Government was supporting the gesture, given Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians."

All applauds go to Ms Irwin, who even identified that there is such a thing as the "Nakba".

"We, as informed and concerned Australians, choose to disassociate ourselves from a celebration of the triumph of racism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians since the al-Nakba (Catastrophe) of 1948."

These are truths that Israel has been trying to suppress, along with their heinous violations of human rights. What really irks the apologists for Israel's crimes is the daily Ha'aretz, which is Israel's most liberal publication. It is home to dissidents such as Gideon Levy and Amira Hass and along with Akiva Eldar, we have a very left voice of Israel criticising the state when Americans won't even touch the subject of Israel doing anything wrong. They've decided that enough is enough and instead of ending the occupation which is what a logical person would do, they go on the offensive (since when DON'T they do that?) and attack on the stage that seems to hurt them the most: the internet.

Because of the Ha'aretz English feature, more and more people who are curious about to what really makes Israel click can see the inner workings of the Knesset members (banishment of Israeli Arabs) and what they support (more settlement construction, no Palestinian state and no Hamas). It's hard to put a positive spin on this no matter how many times you invoke the "demographic bomb" that Netanyahu reiterates ad nauseum. So Israel takes the backlash effect and tests their mettle on the rotunda of the world wide web. Richard Silverstein highlighted the tactics of Israel back in early February:

"They are wreaking vengeance against Israel's enemies by blogging about the worst, most scandalous news about their home countries. I kid you not. Hate those baddies at the Guardian? Tell the world about England's violent drunk teens. L.A. Times got you down dissing Israel? Tell the world about the latest drive by killing. The idea seems to be if you want to smear Israel I'll smear you back. If this isn't the most lame-brained idea I've heard in ages I don't know what is. Instead of damaging the reputations of the countries portrayed, it damages the reputation of Israel that its defenders behave in such a fashion. If you wanted to think of the wackiest pro-Israel propaganda venture could you have thought of this one in a million years?"

The source of his astonishment is the Ha'aretz article that has bloggers trying to counter bad press about Israel on the net. Talk about some sour grapes: you cannot handle the truth so what do you do? You go and smear who's smearing you. Perfect logic here. No, those Palestinians have no grievance at all. It's all fabricated. What? There's good things about Israel? Of course there is. But you could forgive a Palestinian for not sharing that sentiment with you. Here's more of the examples:

"Over the past months, seven activists from Israel and elsewhere have been exposing online readers to scandalous yet accurate reports from media in Britain (violent drunk teens), France (high homeless mortality), Norway (serial child molesters), Finland (sexual harassment in parliament), Sweden (soaring suicide rates), The Netherlands (menacing Muslim unrest), Mexico (rampaging flood victims) and Los Angeles (drive-by killings)."

I love how "menacing Muslim unrest" is a smear. Aren't the Dutch responsible for reprinting that terrible cartoon of the prophet Mohammed that offended millions of Muslims worldwide? I guess that "smear" works for Israel too considering they have "menacing Muslim unrest" being fueled there. What is rather hypocritical is that most states are guilty of these misdemeanors that the bloggers are pinpointing. Which Western nation doesn't have high homeless mortality? Aren't there serial child molesters in Canada too? What about the US who is the country with the most people in prison per capita? What is missing from all of these are how many UN Resolutions they are in violation of, and that NONE of these nations (except for the US) are currently occupying another people. Well Britain and France with NATO involvement but that is a little too technical. The point is, Israel is committing egregious crimes that do not even compare with these petty crimes of the other states.

If all of this is not absurb enough for you, the battle has found its place on Facebook, a social site that lets people interact with "friends" which is more or less a popularity contest. Now I kid you not: the Israel-Palestine conflict is being waged on Facebook of all places. Facebook!

It all began when settlers in the West Bank who are members complained that they are not living in Palestine and that they are Israeli citizens, hence that their country of origin should read "Israel". They claimed that the Facebook creators had bias. Now these citizens of Israel living in illegal settlements of "Maale Adumim, Ariel and other large Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank" are not currently living in Israel, perhaps making that the reason why the country of origin was automatically labeled Palestine since this is the area where there is a proposed Palestinian state. What is sad is that these settlers put up a stink about it because they don't recognise that what they are living on is Palestinian land: THAT'S WHY IT DID NOT SAY ISRAEL. How much can we stress that for it to sink it? This land is not your's and was never your's to begin with. You moved here with the belligerence of Israel's leaders and made peace impossible because you refuse to admit that your presence is in direct violation of international law which is adhered by ALL STATES of the world, including the US.

This offensive is just following Shimon Peres' orders that the battle be taken up in Facebook.

"You can fight anti-Semitism using social networks, like Facebook."

Calling the occupied territories Palestine is not anti-Semitism no matter how much you scream it is. Peres sees no folly in this and he is spearheaded the backlash against Palestinian solidarity which gains more strength whenever Israel bombs and kills civilians. We cannot make this stuff up people and because the root causes of the conflict are being covered more and more and getting more debate on networks such as Facebook, Israel cannot police these thoughts from permeating other non-suspecting citizens who might be molded into thinking that Israel isn't all its cracked up to be. The real shame is the campaign to silence these debates and these criticisms when Israel should be learning from their mistakes and taking into account every dissident voice who claims that Israel is on a path of self-destruction when they refuse to deal with reality.

There can be no real security when such a power disparity is in effect between two opposing nationalist movements. Israel needs to find out that only equality will quell the hatred that is brewing between the two populations and an open debate about it needs to happen if understanding can be met during our lifetime. The battle of the internet is only going to get uglier but the truth in the end shall prevail. If you encounter these zealouts, be not afraid to call them out and take them on for you have the truth on your side. I know I am itching for an encounter.

PS: the Shin Bet has created their own blog. As Norman Finkelstein put it: "Read how Israel tortures and murders Palestinians in real time."

Remembering Rachel Corrie

2008-03-15T19:25:00.000-07:00

Five years ago a brave American activist from Olympia, Washington took a stand against injustice when she refused to move while facing a mammoth bulldozer in order to save Khaled Nasrallah's house from demolition. To this day her sacrifice is rather unknown unless you are part of the struggle for the rights of Palestinians. It is also without a doubt that Americans are very ignorant of the issue confronting Palestinians and Israelis who fight the occupation to the bitter end, and for Rachel, her end was met too prematurely.

Now her parents' pain is not quelled and their battle for justice to see someone being held accountable for their daughter's death is an uphill one. Tom Wright and Therese Saliba penned a good piece on the story of Rachel's journey and her parents attempt to piece reality together when their own daughter's death is being censored in the country they call home. And because of their resolve and desire to keep her spirit alive, other Westerns can see how one person we will never get to meet can make a big difference on the rest of us who wish for a better world and for a just resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Rachel's life and story is being propagated through a play (that was suppressed here in Toronto as well as New York and had troubles finding a theatre in London) and her journals are now published in a book called Let Me Stand Alone: The Journals of Rachel Corrie. To this day, the US and Israel government refuses to investigate the crime that took Rachel from this world, which really shows what type of mettle our representatives are made of. Here we have a story of a girl who saw something she had to take a stand for, eyewitnesses recount that she was a lone figure standing in the way of a Catepillar bulldozer, very similar to those horrific images we remember of Tiananmen Square, and was flattened not only once, but twice as the driver of the bulldozer decided to back up on Rachel's corpse, and we have no one to speak out on her behalf, just half promises and muddled responses. Here's Cindy Corrie questioning Barry Sabin, head of the Counterterrorism Section of the Criminal Division at the Justice Department:

"'Are you saying that no matter what amount of evidence we bring to you there will never be a U.S. investigation into Rachel's killing?' And Barry Sabin said, 'I never say never, but no.' And our daughter Sarah said, 'Even if we could show intent?' And he nodded."

Seeing the futility in their own government to find someone responsible for the death of their daughter, they went public with a play at the urging of Sabin. This way, it gets more word of mouth as well as more press, especially in North America where the good old Lobby does not want any bad news being spoken about its Holy Country. Cindy had to find out the hard way that the US government is in terrible cahoots with Israel:

"The kind of impotence in government around this whole issue, after five years with Rachel's case points to the need for people at the grassroots level to find other channels, other ways of keeping the communications open, of building those relationships that ultimately are going to lead to some change in the world."

The harder they try to suppress her story, the more romanticised it is going to get. Now I never knew Rachel and I will never get to know her, but her death is not only touching myself but she has many websites dedicated to her and her story is well known in Gaza as well as with many Palestinians. Not only that, but also through her demise we are seeing how hollow our representatives are when they speak of taking a stern stance with Israel whenever a Westerner is killed or injured (but only if they happened to fall from Palestinian resistance do we get any coverage of that sort). One wonders if Rachel had lived and finished up in Gaza with the ISM and returned to Olympia that she would get such a reception and an audience we see today. You could only speculate but I would have to lean towards no. It is sad that only with her untimely death that her story is going to be told to so many in this world.

Of course we will get the demonisers who believe that Rachel was naive and protecting terrorists. Do we even have to get into that debacle? No terrorists were found in the house that was demolished, and even if they did have "contacts" with potential terrorists, that is a violation of the Geneva Accords anyway. Tsk, tsk.

Also there are reports that it was an accident. Like someone gets run over by a bulldozer by accident. How fast do those machines go anyway? If there are any doubts then see this photo account by Electronic Intifada.

Rachel is a true sob story and not the Pat Tillman type either. Here was a person who gave up life in affluence in the West to take up a stance that is not very popular and take on a brutal regime that is oppressing Palestinians for the sake of an ancient ideology. Five years on, she is still being vilified and her play was not welcome in many cities. Rachel could have chosen something simplier but instead she felt she had to do something against the biggest injustices we experience in today's society. And how ironic is it that now, five years after, Rachel's play is going to debut IN ISRAEL.

Now how fascinating is that? This play won't get played in many cities in North America and it's being performed in Israel of all places. Do you think there's a Lobby in North America or what? Or do playwrights and yellow theatre owners just have a knack of avoiding controversial issues that might dent their pocketbooks?

I shall leave with some excerpts of some of Rachel's emails:

"I thought a lot about what you said on the phone about Palestinian violence not helping the situation. Sixty thousand workers from Rafah worked in Israel two years ago. Now only 600 can go to Israel for jobs. Of these 600, many have moved, because the three checkpoints between here and Ashkelon (the closest city in Israel) make what used to be a 40-minute drive, now a 12-hour or impassible journey. In addition, what Rafah identified in 1999 as sources of economic growth are all completely destroyed - the Gaza international airport (runways demolished, totally closed); the border for trade with Egypt (now with a giant Israeli sniper tower in the middle of the crossing); access to the ocean (completely cut off in the last two years by a checkpoint and the Gush Katif settlement). The count of homes destroyed in Rafah since the beginning of this intifada is up around 600, by and large people with no connection to the resistance but who happen to live along the border. I think it is maybe official now that Rafah is the poorest place in the world. There used to be a middle class here - recently. We also get reports that in the past, Gazan flower shipments to Europe were delayed for two weeks at the Erez crossing for security inspections. You can imagine the value of two-week-old cut flowers in the European market, so that market dried up. And then the bulldozers come and take out people’s vegetable farms and gardens. What is left for people? Tell me if you can think of anything. I can’t... [February 27 2003]

You can always hear the tanks and bulldozers passing by, but all of these people are genuinely cheerful with each other, and with me. When I am with Palestinian friends I tend to be somewhat less horrified than when I am trying to act in a role of human rights observer, documenter, or direct-action resister. They are a good example of how to be in it for the long haul. I know that the situation gets to them - and may ultimately get them - on all kinds of levels, but I am nevertheless amazed at their strength in being able to defend such a large degree of their humanity - laughter, generosity, family-time - against the incredible horror occurring in their lives and against the constant presence of death. I felt much better after this morning. I spent a lot of time writing about the disappointment of discovering, somewhat first-hand, the degree of evil of which we are still capable. I should at least mention that I am also discovering a degree of strength and of basic ability for humans to remain human in the direst of circumstances - which I also haven’t seen before. I think the word is dignity. I wish you could meet these people. Maybe, hopefully, someday you will... [February 28 2003]

I think I could see a Palestinian state or a democratic Israeli-Palestinian state within my lifetime. I think freedom for Palestine could be an incredible source of hope to people struggling all over the world. I think it could also be an incredible inspiration to Arab people in the Middle East, who are struggling under undemocratic regimes which the US supports.

I look forward to increasing numbers of middle-class privileged people like you and me becoming aware of the structures that support our privilege and beginning to support the work of those who aren’t privileged to dismantle those structures... [February 28 2003]

Right now I think I could stay until June, financially. I really don’t want to move back to Olympia, but do need to go back there to clean my stuff out of the garage and talk about my experiences here. On the other hand, now that I’ve crossed the ocean I’m feeling a strong desire to try to stay across the ocean for some time... I would like to leave Rafah with a viable plan to return, too. One of the core members of our group has to leave tomorrow - and watching her say goodbye to people is making me realize how difficult it will be. People here can’t leave, so that complicates things. They also are pretty matter-of-fact about the fact that they don’t know if they will be alive when we come back here.

I really don’t want to live with a lot of guilt about this place - being able to come and go so easily - and not going back. I think it is valuable to make commitments to places - so I would like to be able to plan on coming back here within a year or so. [Rachel's last email]

Rachel's words will live on.

Bloody and still unbowed

2008-03-08T09:19:00.000-08:00

The horrifying pictures and videos are still searing our memories as the Gaza Strip has experienced one of its bloodiest week since the beginning of the Second Intifada and definitely the biggest death toll in such a short span since Hamas has been in control. You would not know it from the Israeli press or even from the pages of the New York Times that the ghastly total of Israel's excursion into the tiny strip has amounted to 121 according to the AP which "at least 54 of them did not take part in the hostilities" according to B'Tselem (adding that "twenty-five of them minors" and "at least forty-six minors were wounded."). These are amazing numbers when put in comparison with the number of Israelis who have fallen (a paltry 3 for those terrorists who "aim" at civilians). If Hamas is trying to kill Israeli civilians, it is doing a poor job of it. As facts would have it, it is the mighty Israeli army who did superb work of destroying innocents:

"IOF penetrated the Wadi al-Salqa village in the central Gaza Strip, assassinated one man, and killed an infant less than one month old...

They surrounded the home of 40-year-old Yousef Sulaiman al-Smiri...After the IOF besieged al-Smiri's house, the IOF opened fire at it intensively under helicopter cover. It ordered the family, through loud speakers, to leave the house. The family and their guests left the house, except for Yousef al-Smiri who fled.According to affidavits given to Al Mezan by witnesses, the family and the guests left the house as they were instructed by the IOF. The house's outside lights were on and the IOF kept its light on them the entire time. However, the soldiers continued shooting and, consequently, the mother Nadia Abu Aser was hit by a live bullet to her left arm. Her infant daughter, Amira, was injured by a live bullet to her head. Also, the shooting injured four other residents of the house.

There is reason to believe that Yousef al-Smiri was murdered after being stopped. After he fled his house, his body was found at approximately 10:00am the next day (5 March). Believing that he escaped from the IOF, the neighbors found al-Simiri's lifeless body lying in an open area about 150 meters from his house. When the body was examined at the hospital, a live bullet was found in his chest, and his head was crushed."

Not content with their good work in slaying poor Mohammed Al-Boraiy last week, they wanted to repeat their "morale" exercise on more Gazans. Is this what Ehud Olmert had planned when spoke of “weaken” Hamas or pressuring Palestinians in overthrowing the Islamists in a false hope of removing them from power? You would think that Olmert had been taught a lesson from his failure in Lebanon but I guess these politicians will never admit when their policy is one that is fruitless. It seems Olmert’s master plan is being undone in the West Bank also, with a spectacular scene that has Jerusalem being policed more in recent memory. Even though the official Israel line is that they were not responsible for the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, Hizbollah is claiming responsibility for the latest killings in Jerusalem evoking the “retribution” that was inevitable after another of Israel’s extra-judicial killing. Time and again, the doomed nature of Israel’s militancy is putting their citizens in danger of reprisal and Olmert seems not to care.

Now we have children, dozens of them, being killed and this is meant to make Palestinians blame Hamas? This doesn’t even make the news in the Israeli press:

“the Yedioth Ahronoth and Maariv dailies, to be specific - decided that the killing of over 60 residents of Gaza in one day by our soldiers is not a story. The proof: There is no mention of it, not even implied, on the first pages of these two newspapers, their obvious showcase…Only on the margins of page 3, in tiny letters, was there a first mention: About 95 Palestinians killed since Wednesday. A first picture of the killing and the outcry in Gaza on page 6.”

With such disregard for the worth of Palestinian life, it’s easy to paint them as part of the enemy’s front line. Why, they use “human shields”, don’t they? The killing of their children is a great military strategy: they have less people to “blend in” with. They’re cowards. We can sit in our fighter planes and bomb them like the ants they are and only feel a “slight bump on the wing”.

What is important to note is that Israel has not felt the need to even cover what’s going on inside Gaza, as they have not sent ONE single reporter in there. How else are they meant to know what’s going on if they don’t even care enough to report on it?

The Israelis, the Americans and yes even most of the West’s dehumanization of the Palestinians is what is contributing to their failed strategy to even come close to quelling the violence in the region. Plenty of politics are thrown in, and it is far too complex to limit to a single damning point that is the leading reason why things are getting so bad but you would think that after the Iraq disaster that the elite would think twice about such invasions and bombing campaigns to “weaken” the enemy. With the ascendance of Hamas back in January 2006, it has been a consistent point of Washington to try to ignore that a pattern is happening that is weakening their presence in the Middle East. Hence the great deal of importance on the Vanity Fair article that only embodies what Condoleezza Rice and George Bush had in mind when the “surprise” of a Hamas victory, which should have been foreseen since there were MANY advisors who stated that the Fatah party were not “ready” ie they were not prepared to face the onslaught of a “clean Hamas” against a “dirty Fatah” on a one man, one vote election, and even Rice’s head proxy confessed that the elections were not a good idea, that they have to do what they can to eradicate this nuisance of a party.

Rice does not come out too cleanly in the article, and according to Missing Links, the article totally exonerates Dahlan and his party since they always attest that their plan was doomed to begin with. “It was not our fault” that the coup did not happen because they were weak, under-funded and unprepared. Hamas saw what was coming and naturally did what any political party does: survive. How ironic is it now that over a decade later after being tortured by Fatah police and security personnel for attempting to sabotage the Oslo process it is Hamas who has the power to do so over Fatah soldiers. And could Hamas be blamed for trying to show Fatah that it was only part and parcel of the occupation? That Israel had passed on the duties of occupation to its own proxy army in the territories called Fatah who were doing their best to clamp down on dissent and resistance?

This is the major problem that Rice and Bush have dug for themselves, and to a lesser extent Ehud Olmert: their sheer opposition of Hamas and Hizbollah as something less than what they are, or by merging them with “terrorists” as al-Qaeda or even “terrorist states” such as Iran has them stuck in a xenophobic drama. Despite what Rice and Bush might say, Hamas is far from an Iranian proxy (like Fatah is when Bush undertook that policy to overthrow Hamas). It may get aid from Iran but tell me where does Hamas expect to get aid from? There have been reports upon reports about the situation in Gaza being the worst since ’67, having no electricity, no medical system and their food is in short storage. This is no way to restore faith in the Palestinians and is the biggest double standard when you refuse to accept their decision on who they want to lead them in talks. And because for some reason that aggrieved Palestinians do not want to suffer more humiliation at the hands of the colonizer, who has made them refugees once, twice and sometimes even more than that, they react angrily and decide to fire some rockets, the sanctions that are meant to hurt Hamas only hurt those normal Palestinians more. It is their food that is being rationed and their movement that is being challenged and their children that is being hurt and killed. Collective punishment has not worked to overthrow anyone; it only works to add more “fuel to the fire”. With all the fighting, Hamas has more material to give to anyone who will listen that Israel is intent to inflict damage of “Holocaust” proportions. And with the current invectives being hurled at Arab MK’s in the Knesset coupled with the number of casualties in the Gaza Strip, who is to blame Hamas for not trying to capitalize on all of this?

Hamas already has called the Israeli pullout a victory. Olmert claims that is was only a limited action to give Hamas a “taste” of what is to come. It is difficult to surmise what is to come next, with contradictory accounts from both Olmert and the coming Egypt initiative that is supposed to be backed by the Israelis and the US. Yet again, Hamas is foiling the US plans and this won’t be the last of it.

But what is very sordid is that all of this fighting could have been avoided. Muhammed Al-Boraiy could have lived for a lot longer and the one month baby girl could have had her first steps. Had it not been for the casus belli against Hamas, it might have been led to something more tangible than a shaky talk with Egypt as the mediator. The shortsightedness of Rice and Bush is leading them to repeat their mistake of Lebanon back in 2006 when Rice expressed with bravado that it was to be a “birthpang of a new Middle East”. Little did she know that she was almost correct: the resistance groups of Hizbollah and Hamas are surely making a very strong point of being regarded as a legitimate player in the Middle East, and cannot easily be diverted as some marginal faction that is only intent on terrorism and bent on Israel’s demise. Rice, the Cold War expert, is seeing that using pulpits along the region is not the easiest way to do business. Bush the catechist, may not be willing to admit that his “us versus them” policy is bankrupt and is leading the American empire down a slippery slope that has Iran becoming the biggest influence in the violatile Middle East, hence why Israel wants the US to take it down.

The calculation of "not talking to terrorists" has cornered the Bush administration into a tough episode here. While the double standard is so odious when North Korea is spoken to and Iran is isolated, the plan of putting Hamas as a "terrorist" entity has culminated into what we have seen in the last week or two. The deaths would have been avoided if the Bush administration had not attempted to punish Palestinians for voting in Hamas. Had Hamas been engaged when they were showing plenty of signs of moderating, who knows what could have been accomplished? Rice and co. do not want to go back on their principles of not giving terrorists any leverage but what Rice and co. seem to miss is that it is they who cannot choose who speaks for their "enemies". By branding Hamas as "terrorists", they ideologically had to ignore the result, since they weren't "our kind of guy(s)". Thus, we have the policy of isolation that has led many Hamas supporters from believing that Washington are serious with negotiations to being in complete disillusion that Washington's words had any real merit. Bombing Lebanon and littering it with cluster bombs did not do a thing to weaken Hizbollah's support as Israel still has to do with them no matter what they do. Quite surprising is that the only person who seems to have any logic is Ron Paul as he was the only 'no' vote in Congress for the new resolution condemning Palestinian rocket attacks. It seems they will never learn.

As a matter of fact, it is Hamas that is learning all the rules of the game. The violence may have not lead to much, and the Qassams are usually ineffective but they have led Israel to the negotiating table with them, something that has not happened since they were elected into power. The Fatah wing is largely hollow, with only aid and Washington’s backing keeping them alive in the West Bank. Since Annapolis, Fatah has not seen one concession from Israel, only subterfuge and fake “removals” that only solidifies the Jerusalem bloc. This has been consistent with every peace process, and it is no wonder that Hamas states that Israel is not intent on giving up anything through negotiations and only armed resistance can show them that there is a price to pay for continued colonization of Palestinian lands. Now that it has weathered the Israeli storm, it is now in a standoff that could potentially lead to a ceasefire. The sanctions may not be lifted but Hamas has shown that is can survive the slow starvation though this does nothing to help pressure Hamas.

Of course, we will get the typical replies that “if only Hamas recognize Israel” and all that fluff. But we’re not talking about final borders here, are we? Aren’t we just talking of a ceasefire? The solution to the conflict has to involve Hamas, and not just the phony leader that Washington beefed up for theatre. Whether Washington likes it or not, Hamas has the support of the people, or else it would not have voted for it. It is stupid to believe that Canada did not like the fact that Bush was voted in (again) so therefore they immediately cut all financial ties to the US; they merely accepted the result and just kept going with business as usual. I know, I know, bad analogy: but just because you do not like the victor of an election does not mean that they don’t have legitimacy. If you want relations with the country, you talk with the voted representative of the population. You don’t try to ignore the result and attempt to delegate the responsibility on third parties: this isn’t 1967 and the Jordanian option was a failure. The PLO was selected for a reason; Hamas was voted in for a reason. Now let’s swallow our idiotic pride and talk with Hamas before it really is too late.

Secondly, the demands of Hamas are just a plan for them to be viewed as rejectionists. What’s usually missing is the fact that although Hamas won’t recognize Israel, Israel won’t recognize Israel: Israel does not have final borders. Israel does not recognize Israel on the UN Partition borders nor even on the Green Line. In the words of Mamoon Alabbasi,

“So why is Hamas being singled out for not recognising the UN drawn Israel (the one with the pre-1967 Green Line borders)?

And the Israel that Israel itself recognises (the one that includes land grabbed through war) is not recognised by the international community.”

So the world does not recognize Israel in its current form and yet Hamas is being bullied to commit to it? Now that is quite a double standard and Hamas are no fools. It is even reported that despite the condemnation of Palestinian schoolbooks inciting hatred towards Israel, it is the Israeli textbooks that do not even show the Green Line. The education system does not recognize Palestine and yet Hamas is meant to recognize Israel? Is Israel required to recognize a Palestinian state before they are brought to the negotiating table? (They should recognize one anyway.) I quote Alabbasi again,

“why is Hamas expected to recognise those who do not recognise them?”

But that does not stop Hamas from sending out gestures of a ceasefire? Do they stop talks with Washington because they do not recognize Hamas? Absolutely not. And to be even more frank, Israel did not require such a demand of Egypt and Jordan, both of whom have had peace and normalisation with Israel for a number of decades. So is the requisite for recognition such an imperative? After all, those Palestinian textbooks come from Egypt and Jordan, so they do not recognize Israel and incite hatred towards them yet peace is still a possibility within those two nations.

It is just a clever ploy in order to keep Hamas as a fringe. But unfortunately for Bush, Olmert and co. they are not going away too easily and have put their strategy completely off the track. Engaging Hamas would be the policy that would make the most sense. They have some sort of prestige and they are the most likely party to bring order in Gaza and stop those Qassams from flying over into Israel. A modicum of common sense would have led one to undertake this policy back when Hamas was voted in but Rice decided to go another route, one that neocon David Wurmser called “a stunning disconnect between the president’s call for Middle East democracy and this policy”.

No one has ever accused the Bush administration of dealing with reality but Hamas are making themselves become a reality to the administration. You can never know what to expect next as Washington could well be on the way of cooking up another plan to derail Hamas. But as of right now, Hamas is still alive, and unbowed.

They kill babies, don't they

2008-02-29T19:52:00.000-08:00

Originally I was going to write about the latest from Obamarama, with quite enlightening facts peeping through about the latest "new hope" of America's politics. But not to unjustly deflect his noteworthy progress aside, I was more emotive ie disgusted, about the latest string of killings in the Gaza Strip, all thanks to our friendly neighbourhood occupier, Israel. I do not think it is unfair that the Obama post was put on the shelf, and in hindsight it is perhaps better off that I refrain from the hysteria that is engulfing Barack. His exploits has been well documented by the blogosphere, all by better and more experienced analysts than myself. So I would just be a small fish in a really big pond, and who needs to be superfluous when it comes to Israel-Palestine.

All Obama aside, Gaza has been raging with its residents screaming. Israel refuses to ease on the blockades, despite the EU and the UN all rightfully reprobating Israel for its misguided policy of "collective punishment". Upon this writing, Israel is continually warning (threatening) of a full-scale invasion of Gaza, letting everyone know that what has happened recently in Gaza is just a precursor of more pain and suffering to come. In fact, it was one particularly event that immediately gained my attention, and should also make the rest of the world balk at the "benevolence" of "the only democracy in the Middle East": a six-month old baby falling victim by Israel's bombs. His name was Mohammed Al-Boraiy.

This is earth shattering news, or it should be. I do not doubt that it will be lost in the midst of other spectacular deaths that too frequent the Palestinians. It is true that there was a casualty in Sderot from a Qassam attack, and this will prove very useful for the two Ehuds in the Knesset: it gives more justification for the kind of acts that we see too plainly, like the one above. Sderot is just the perfect pretext for more death and destruction to be inflicted on Hamas and the Gaza Strip. It matters not to the West that some of Hamas' members were killed previously before the Sderot death: what matters is that an Israeli died, and some Palestinians have to pay for their death, and with record numbers to boot. Poor tiny Mohammed, his life taken away, and he didn't even get a chance to utter his first word. A scant search for an Israeli comment on Mohammed goes unrewarded: the only one I found was a "no comment" and the usual reply that it was in retaliation for Qassams. What could they say about that? What could the media say about it? No CNN google hit, no Fox News google hit, no New York Times article, no Washington Post. Where's Thomas Friedman and his intellectual insight now?

Unfortunately, Mohammed was not the only tragedy in the last few days coming out of the Gaza Strip. Among the numbers were four children, and some reports naming a fifth, "killed while they played football".

"While the Israeli military said it had been targeting militants and rocket-launching squads, the officials said the boys were playing football close to their homes in Jabalya, northern Gaza."

Israel was not content there: they pummelled the home of Ismael Haniyeh, and caused more destruction at a nearby pharmacy, "a disabled centre catering for 400 chronically ill patients". This occupation was already ugly; it has just reared its ugly head yet again. What was Rice's response? "Hamas" is to blame for this purgatory.

More and more pictures, footage and articles appear that reveal that the occupation is not something that can be prettified. Jonathan Cook reported not only the lack of rights for Israeli Arabs, but also on the revelation that the killer of Aseel Asleh will not be punished close to eight years later. Still no justice for the Palestinians. Secondly, the reports that the behaviour of the IDF is purile, exposing themselves to Palestinian shepherds as they expel them from their land. And Hebron has been a haven of incidents:

"Shooting Palestinian bystanders; illegally commandeering cars and going on joyrides; torturing a youth by pressing a heater to his face and beating cuffed prisoners on their way to custody. These are only some of the reported cases of abuse for which Israel Defense Forces soldiers serving in the West Bank are currently on trial."

The article has some hideous testimonies:

"Last July, soldiers from the brigade commandeered a local taxi...The driver, Mohammed Issa Mahrazeh, was also removed, tied up and blindfolded and returned to the vehicle, where he was held for the duration of the incident. He sustained bruises...

According to Israel Radio, IDF soldiers used the cameras on their mobile phones to record themselves abusing detained Palestinians. Some of the soldiers allegedly beat the detainees while one of the soldiers is accused of exposing himself...

"We'd go on a patrol," one soldier told Channel 2 [television]. "If even one kid looked at us the wrong way, he'd be slapped. Rocks were thrown at us during one patrol, and we caught one of the kids who knew the perpetrators. We beat the crap out of him until he told us who did it." The soldier said that he and other soldiers tracked down a boy said to be involved, aged 14, and placed the tips of their rifles in his mouth. "We said, 'You want to die? Just say when and where,'" the soldier recalled...

[S]oldiers at roadblocks choked 10-year-old Palestinians with their bare hands until the children passed out."

Why there has been another report in Hebron of IDF soldiers beating a Palestinian and forcing him to dance naked. This is all too indicative of the moral decay that is happening within the IDF ranks as well as the Israeli Jewish mentality. The sheer humiliation that is being inflicted upon the Palestinians is sick pleasure for the IDF, high on the euphoria of their superiority, drunk with power, and now subject to capriciousness and whimsy as sick as their mind can take them. See what they can do to a pathetic Palestinian: reduce him to an animal, cage them in, brand them with ID cards, burn their olive trees, bulldoze their home, split their land, make him dance naked. We can even bomb their children and get away with it. This is what Palestinians see when they talk of the "only democracy in the Middle East". Gaza is a living experiment, and the prison is threatening to break out in a violent rage.

In fact, there's been a slippage of sorts, as Israel's Deputy Israeli Defense Minister Matan Vilnai reportedly called for a "bigger Holocaust" on the Gaza Strip. Ali Abunimah recalled that Vilnai used the Hebrew term "shoah" which is what the Jews use to refer to the Nazi Holocaust. Now Israel's officials are in deep damage control as they want to distance themselves from Vilnai's Freudian slip or attempt to downplay its intention that Vilnai only exclaimed for it to be a "disaster or a catastrophe". Now even Israel's leaders are invoking themselves as Nazis as they undertake a search and destroy mission in the Gaza Strip.

Further review of Abunimah's article only iterates that the call for the culling or removal of Palestinians is not something new.

"On 28 February, Vilnai's colleagues added their own inflammatory statements. Cabinet minister Meir Sheetrit stated that Israel should "hit everything that moves" in Gaza "with weapons and ammunition," adding, "I don't think we have to show pity for anyone who wants to kill us."

This is what we're growing accustomed to. Israeli Chief Rabbi Metgzer advocates a Palestinian state in the Sinai where "the plan would be to "take all the poor people from Gaza to move them to a wonderful new modern country with trains buses cars, like in Arizona - we are now in a generation where you can take a desert and build a city." Unfortunately we're not reciting any silly fantasies here: as Abunimah has alerted, the call for Palestinian displacement is quite normal among Rabbis.

Vilnai's slip-up is not really that big of a deal when we're dealing with the Palestinians. It is just another in the archives of Israel's intention to dehumanise their enemies and reduce them to rubble. We're going to get more hard words from each leader and Mohammed's death is going to be used to further fan the flames of aggression, just like the infamous bombing at a Gaza beach during Operation Summer Rain back in 2006. It is no accident though that we have forgotten about that incident, just like further down the road many will forget about what happened to Mohammed. The violence is just too much and we're inured to it. "Shit happens" during war: I find it hard to believe that Mohammed's parents will take solace in that reasoning.

Although the call for a "new Holocaust" has not balked many as of yet, it is in glaring constrant with the current polling statistics that has Israelis wanting a dialogue with Hamas: a gesture that was advocated here over and over. Not to toot my own horn but it was foreseen that the only way for the Qassams to really be stopped is to negotiate with Hamas, give them legitimacy and let them have the power over who to police the rocket fire. Just upon finishing Abunimah's book One Country: A Bold Proposal To End the Israeli-Palestininan Impasse, where he responds to a critic of his against a one-state solution he writes

"Give people rights and conflict diminshes...

When people's rights are recognized, it is possible to stop seeing them as terrorists and murderers and start seeing them as national assets and fellow citizens." [pg 174]

Just a small gesture to talk to Hamas will go a long way as it will give Hamas a reason to believe that Israel sees them as something significant, or of importance, or even of equal margin as Israel. With some trust, maybe the distance between enemies will be reduced. They don't have to be best friends: Egypt and Jordan both have peace deals with Israel and they don't recognise the Jewish state. They have "normalisation": why can't this be the same model for Hamas?

To be accurate, 64 % want Israel to talk with Hamas about a ceasefire and the release of Shalit (remember him?). That is a great margin and one that is gaining "public traction". More revealing is the fact that the Likud (48 %), Kadima (55 %) and Labour (72 %) are all a majority being in favour for a Hamas negotiation. Why then, does not Olmert put his guns down and talk to Hamas? His public wants him to, and even his coalition are in favour of it (except Barak of course)? Is this going to be another case of the population showing more common sense than its government? I believe it is more evidence that it is the public who truly feels the rockets being launched and its ramifications as Israel's officials sit in their safe offices and put more Sderot residents in harm's way just to make a point of not "talking to our enemy who wishes us dead". They're not doing that good of a job if that is their intention as Israel is leading the way by far on the dead campaign. Or is this the way for a "new Holocaust"?

The moral bankruptcy of the occupation is turning for the worse. It could be these unenlightening facts that is making young Jews in America turn away from the "pro-Likud" line that Obama rightfully rues as the way toward mutual destruction. And it is a possibility that that is what they see in Obama when they talk of "change": it is a very new development when a Presidential candidate talks so clearly about the Israel issue in America. While Clinton and McCain both aim to be more hawkish on Israel's front, Obama is making us breathe a fresher air when he reminds Israel that

"there was a tension that arose between the African American and the Jewish communities during that period when we were dealing with apartheid in South Africa, because Israel and South Africa had a relationship at that time."

Obama is opening up the debate even more, and it is more than welcome. Being too precocious when it comes to Israel is a big mistake especially when the consequences are so dire. We have children dying here so whenever Obama puts Israel in its place, it is more than backed up by circumstantial evidence when Mohammed is recalled. And Obama is right when he says that a "pro-Likud" thinking is not necessarily what most American Jews want. Here's Glenn Greenwald's account:

"With regard to virtually every issue, the right-wing American Jewish factions which act as arbiters for what views are "pro-Israel" and what views signify "anti-Israeli" animus or even anti-Semitism actually represent a minority -- often a small minority -- of Jews generally, and their views are sometimes even rejected by a majority of Israelis."

And it's Israelis again who are embarrassing Americans and Israel's government yet again. Debates are fierce in Israel; in the US the only debate is whether your criticism is anti-Semitic or not and that does a great disservice for not only Israelis who desire peace and normalisation in the Middle East, but those who truly see themselves as a great ally to Israel. Right now, the calling for a "new Holocaust" is not one that will end good, and for the Palestinians, it could be close to extinction.

Maybe it is a little too late to engage Hamas now when another Palestinian toddler is slain. As I was typing this, the report came in that there were more casualties inflicted, and this time a 13 month old baby was killed. That's two babies in the span of two days.

"The bloodletting began before midnight Friday in the northern town of Beit Hanoun, where a 13-month-old girl, Malak Karfaneh, was killed by shrapnel."

Sadly the report does indicate that it was the Qassam firers who were responsible as their launch fell short and landed in the area of the baby's house. Now this cycle of violence is really on the tipping point. Maybe this may make Hamas rethink their position too but I somehow doubt it. Hamas is not as guilty as Israel but their insistence to retaliate is not helping matters anymore. It's true that they have to show Israel that there is a price to occupy but now we're stuck in a turmoil and little children are being killed. "In all, more than 70 Palestinians, including around 40 civilians, have been killed since fighting flared on Wednesday." That's a tragedy right now.

Condoleezza Rice is on her way back to the Middle East for "conflict resolution" but she still laments Hamas over all of this. The polls say talk to Hamas and Rice just continually blames them. This is not the way to go. Hamas were voted in for a reason. Mark Perry has been quoted that "Hamas is moderate" as well as Tony Karon. NOT to engage with him is a policy that will lead to nowhere but more Qassam rockets. As Sderot hears more alarms, Gaza ends up burning. And Olmert is not phased by any of this.

It might be safe to say that Annapolis is effectively over. Abbas is unable to do anything to appease the situation, even as the West attempts to bolster his image as the sole provider for the Palestinians. Hamas is resisting but it seems that their campaign is falling short as the world calls for them to be implemented. Annapolis could have been a guide to a better talk and we know that it could have been better than what we see happening in Gaza, but instead we were still stuck with the "ideological" battle over "good vs evil" that Daniel Levy warned us about. Back in November, Levy said if Bush and Olmert are intent on upholding the fact that Hamas is not someone to talk to then Annapolis is over and done with before it begins. Look where we are now: can you say that Levy was wrong?

What's more sickening to think of is that neither side seems willing to go back. Olmert wants to make Gazans pay. Hamas wants to show it can still be effective in taking some chunk out of Israel. The occupation just gets uglier by the day as the West Bank is carved up and East Jerusalem is severed from Palestinian life. The sole light right now is Obama, as hopes could be pinned on him on turning back this path toward a "new Holocaust". The bad news is that Obama can only be sworn in in 2009, and even if he does win, there really is no indication that he can take on a spineless Congress whose pockets are stuffed with AIPAC money. But just as Israeli officials are in damage control over Vilnai's slip, the Jewish quarter are also in major damage control over Obama's ascendence into the prime candidate for the Democratic party. Their methods are well-known but it only seems to give more steam to the Obama train.

Now I am not ready to endorse the man but he seems quite the reasonable option. He is talking a good talk (lately) and he does have Robert Malley as an advisor. Maybe there might be a Democrat whom we could vote for. It is still premature but Obama's latest exploits have made me warm up to him. And with recent events we can only hope for more of Obama's sternness in front of Israel's crowd.

Note: I had this written out yesternight but lost the heart of it due to a terrible computer malfunction. Vilnai's comments should not be easily forgotten, as it evokes the Nazis but only this time, it is Israel that is being compared to them (although some scholars have done so previously). Vilnai's quote reminds me of a statement that I found on Palestine Remembered:

"Through their own words do they damn themselves."

The Zionists have been on record through diaries and memoirs stating their intention for the removal of Palestinians, the existence of Palestinians and their plans to provoke response against Arab states in order for more war to gain territory or recognition that Israel is under constant attack. This is just another quote in a big archive dating back to Herzl upon the birth of Zionism. Upon further understanding of what Zionism really meant for the Palestinians, it is painstakingly clear that what drives the Zionists today is the same thing that drove the Stern Gang, the Irgun and the Haganah back in the 40s: the realisation of the total Jewish majority in historic Palestine. When given this information, the conflict is given a deeper meaning than just politics over rights and terrorism and "peace processes". There is internal debate over whether to give up the occupied territories, but not many question the need for a Jewish state that champions Jews over Palestinians. Vilnai only went a step further that most will not say in public but think in private.

Now I do feel quite remorseful thanks to the latest numbers. But what's more telling is there really is no end in sight now. I doubt the offer of a ceasefire will be on the table for much longer. Hamas is being arrested in the West Bank and Israel wants to continue with their failed policy of liquidation.

And it could not be any more logical: the open arms of Osama Bin Laden and co will be welcoming such Israeli bombing. The ignorance of this is too telling as Iraq provides the perfect lesson that no one is learning from. Here's the thing: more deaths will only mean more martyrs. Mohammed will be lifted to this profile I'm sure of it.

It is the same case for Israel: another death in Sderot only means that Hamas is not really sincere with their gesture of a ceasefire. But Israel has the means to put an end to this: Gaza is still being controlled fully by Israel (along with Egypt, the EU and the US). The easement of the sanctions can slow down Qassams. A bilateral talk with Hamas would show that you are serious about Hamas' concern and they would match that with an offer that would deal with Israel's concern about security. Hamas oversaw a unilateral ceasefire for a year. It can be done if Israel wants to.

I do not want more people to die but Hamas needs something to cling to or else other factions will take the lead in the resistance front and by the looks of how things are turning out, it is those peripheral groups that are being proven right: there's no legal way of dealing with Israel when it comes to Palestinian concern. Fatah was neutered, going from a large resistance movement with arms, turning into a hapless party with no power and full of corrupt officials. Hamas condemned the PLO of being just another tool of the occupation: now they are part of it. What's Hamas to do now when they played with the cards that the occupier gave them and they still come out with a losing hand? Islamic Jihad's contention that Israel has NO intention of ever conceding anything to Palestinians unless you threaten them with an armed struggle is looking more alluring to estranged Gaza youth who get killed while they play football. Not only that, they lose limbs, get beaten up, see their relatives shot at, and have their freedom of movement taken away. This is not a way to make friendly neighbours.

We are no closer to a mediation. Ironically, we're closer to "new Holocaust". Can we invoke those two words "never again"?

Paging Israel: Let's have a ceasefire

2008-02-24T18:42:00.000-08:00

For lack of a better way to end the constant assault on Sderot, Hamas is still putting the offer of a ceasefire for Israel to accept, despite the current casaulties that afflicts Gazans, as well as the relentless siege mentality that has left three dead today at Bein Hanoun, seventy injured at a non-violent protest in Bethlehem, and at least 170 people killed by Israel since the beginning of the Annapolis peace conference back in November. On top of that, Gazan life has become quite unbearable, with the power outages hurting not only the hospitals, but even the sewage system that has left Gaza "stinking", as Mohammed Omar put it.

"Sewage water is filling the streets... The stench is unbearable...

The amount of children who have been taken ill has increased considerably. Cases of diarrhea are mounting by the day. Even now, children continue to play outside amongst the raw sewage – where else can they go?"

What's also surprising is the fact that the Gaza siege is also destroying Israel's economy also. Here is an excerpt from an article in the Middle East Times:

"The West Bank and Gaza Strip constitute Israel's second biggest market after the United States. In 2006, the combined 3.5 million residents of the Palestinian territories imported over $2 billion worth of Israeli products, or more than 6 percent of all Israeli exports excluding diamonds. This is the same amount that Italy and France combined, two of the eight richest countries in the world, imported from Isreal.

Israel's business community has voiced its alarm. Ronen Leshem, head of the business department at Israel's Peres Center for Peace, wrote recently in an op-ed in The Marker, an Israeli business publication: "In a few weeks, the business sector in Gaza is going to collapse, and one of the big losers is going to be Israel."

Rather appalling when you have a government cynically putting their own people in harm's way, threatening normal citizens about the security of their job because they refuse to let them deal with a market that has been so sacred to them, and all for the sake of imagery: the big bad wolf Israel still has its might, and you Arabs better not have any thoughts about taking us on. We're still strong, we still have (nuclear) weapons, and our military budget is bigger than your's. Naturally, we'll bomb you without any provocation and perhaps even liquidate some of your peripheral (eventual) martyrs: this will show you Arabs who's boss.

Although one could conclude that this is all very silly, it is not when you partake in Middle East politics. In fact, this revealing article by Patricke Seale elevated Israel's need for "targeted assassinations" for the purpose of deterrence and strategy:

"[P]ossible explanation for the Mughniyeh killing is that Israel was keen to demonstrate to its regional opponents -- not just Hizbullah and Hamas, but Syria and Iran as well -- that its long arm can reach deep into their home territory. This seems also to have been the message of Israel’s air-raid last September against a military installation in eastern Syria -- an unprovoked violation of Syrian sovereignty and international law, which the Bush administration appears to have approved.

No doubt, such spectacular feats of arms are also intended to remind Washington -- and especially its intelligence community -- that in spite of the fiasco of the Lebanese war, Israel remains a valuable strategic asset in America’s ‘global war on terror'.There may well have been some reasons of internal Israeli politics for the assassination of Mughniyeh."

And we shall not forget about Olmert's own reasons for wanting to pummel Palestinians:

"Olmert may have felt the need to restore his prestige with the Israeli public after the Vinograd commission’s stern indictment of his leadership in the 2006 war."

But we're missing what's important here: sure, Qassams are a rather pesky nuisance for Sderot residents, but they have inflicted such tiny damage, which only is testament when one sees the total disparity between Gaza dead and Israeli dead: "at most one Israeli is killed for the death of some 40 Palestinians." I do not wish to minimise the launcher's intention: I assume it is to terrorise the Israelis; but what about the "daily raids and the cruel siege"? Do they not have the same intention to terrorise Palestinians into cowering humans, hoping that they would uprise against Hamas, the only organisation who seems to have their best interests at heart?

Back on the 18th, a UN official described the conditions of Gaza, saying

"Medical services in Gaza are deteriorating, private industry has more or less collapsed, and there are real worries about education. There is increasing dependence on international aid, which has risen very sharply over the last eight months."

He also hinted at a "humanitarian catastrophe" and said 73 percent relies on food aid. This is quite the comfortable living that Olmert has remarked at, "an affront to the dignity of the people" in Gaza as stated by Mr. Holmes of the UN. Apparently we have differing versions on what living comfortably really means. And this is omitting the simple fact that Gaza is stinking while being amongst the most densely populated place on the planet, all done with the support of the West.

Despite this gruesome reality, Hamas continues to lay down the ceasefire offer. I know many would say it's just another opportunity for them to build arms. So what? Would Israel not build more arms to counter that? Or would Hamas be the only one required to cease any military activity? Preposterous.

Hamas intention for opportunism should only be a sidenote from what truly matters: a cessation of hostilies that sees both Gazans and Israelis fearing the air. We're getting alot of commonsense from the local people who are suffering from the inept policies of Olmert and co., getting alot of groundbreaking work on blogs. It is with great pride that I do feature the blog that has one Gazan and one resident of Sderot doing their best to show that Palestinians and Israelis are not fated to destroy each other. And continuing on that same vein, February 23rd saw a "Gaza Siege Day", seeing "[p]eople in more than 30 countries from the four corners of the globe to protest the "inhumane" Israeli siege of the Gaza Strip." We can only hope for more activity along this nature.

On the plus side, we're getting two major calls to talk with Hamas from important posts. The Israeli Mayor of Sderot himself has indicated that he "would say to Hamas, let's have a ceasefire". Now this isn't some fringe member of society here that is either an anti-Zionist, post-Zionist or even a dove, but the actual mayor of the town being terrorised is wanting to negotiate with "the devil", ie Hamas. He even refers to Hamas as "the devil": now there can be no threats of a pro-Palestinian here, can there be?

But maybe he's just seeing what all of us is seeing: that Hamas should be engaged with. This is precisely what a former Mossad chief has suggested Olmert should do. Again, this is not some left-wing nut who wants to appease the Palestinians and go back to the 67 borders such and such, but "Efraim Halevy received the prestigious CIA Director's Award from then-director George Tenet for his assistance to the U.S. intelligence service". He's been described as "a hawk", and his interview is one that must be read by everyone who believes that Hamas is an entity that should be ignored.

"Hamas is not al Qaeda and, indeed, al Qaeda has condemned them time and time again. Hamas may from time to time have tactical, temporary contact with al Qaeda, but in essence they are deadly adversaries. The same goes for Iran. Hamas receives funds, support, equipment, and training from Iran, but is not subservient to Tehran. A serious effort to dialogue indirectly with them could ultimately drive a wedge between them."

This means that Hamas is not some extremist regime that wants to stifle any effort for normalisation. It is not a terrorist faction: it is the body that was voted by the Palestinians to represent them. They have a voice which should be heard. They were voted in for a reason. Hamas "has demonstrated that they are more credible and effective as a political force inside Palestinian society than Fatah", and "[i]t makes sense to approach a possible initial understanding including Hamas—but not exclusively Hamas—at a time when they are still asking for one. No side will gain from a flare up leading to Israel re-entering the Gaza strip in strength to undo the ill-fated unilateral disengagement of 2005."

And the ridiculous precondition for Hamas to recognise Israel's "right to exist" is ludicrous. The intent is for a ceasefire, you do not need to recognise anyone's right to exist to halt attacks. You just need to negotiate a treaty that both parties can agree to. Having Hamas cave in to the demand is "an a priori renunciation of ideology before contact is made. Such a demand has never been made before either to an Arab state or to the Palestinian Liberation Organization/Fatah."

Halevy also testifies that Abbas is weak, and the US and Israel have done nothing to empower his movement. He seems rather neutered, and creating a Palestinian satrap has been a large failure so far. Halevy ends the interview with a very pessimisstic view:

"It appears by all indications that neither Israel nor the United States are prepared to contemplate such a test of alternative strategy."

And how can we say that he is wrong? We've got Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain as the options for Presidency. Many want to back Barack, but he's shown no real indication that he can do what no other President since Eisenhower has done: take on the Zionist Lobby. He seems more like cosying up to the old Jewish establishment to reassure them that Israel is safe in his hands. Some change. Nevertheless, he is taking a battering in the smear column.

But what is Olmert to do now? We know that he has to look strong, reeling from the defeat of the Lebanon War: hence the actions at Syria and the slaying of Mughniyeh. He also has to keep Hamas off the legitimacy table, considering he is unable to stop Qassams from landing in Israeli territory. Someone has to die for Qassams being launched; what kind of a lesson will that be for Israelis? We talk to our enemy who wants us dead? I don't think so.

For too long we've been ignoring the fact that Hamas wants to talk, and it wants to engage with the rest of the world. Why do we continue to sideline them and pretend that they are not serious in their intention? Why are we stuck in a paradox where the only way to talk is to "not talk" and provide action that only decreases the possibility for justice and peace? Alastair Crooke analyses the failings of the West to engage in dialogue with Islamists, that

"Unless there is this questioning and awakening in the West [about Islamism] - and I use the word deliberately - an awakening - then I think that the West will remain unchanged...

Talking therefore, in terms of the title of this talk, is not overdue. Sadly, at this stage, the West cannot hear."

It's still xenophobia and ignorance that prevents the West from normalisation with the Orient. Israel may want Hamas to go away by their own rules, and by the delaying tactics that would only encapsulates their policy of maximisation of land into Israeli control and the monopoly of arms and power in the region; the West accepts the ideology that Hamas and Hizbollah and all the rest are just backward people who cannot be trusted when they talk of "peace" because their just disingeniune and are merely playing possum so they can destroy civilisation and turn it all into Sharia law. Or to put it plainly, "the devil". But even we have to talk to "the devil" himself some day. Why not now when they offer to stop terrorising Sderot for a very long time? Are Halevy and Sderot Mayor Eli Moyal's cries to talk to "the devil" going to go unheard? Or are Sderot residents left to rely on the aid that charities give them because Israel just uses them as an excuse to continue their siege of Gaza?

Are we going to listen? When soldiers are "Breaking the Silence" by exhibiting the toll Occupation has, do we continue to deflect the call to look amongst ourselves when we remain silent about all of this?

Kosovo Independence means good news for Palestine

2008-02-20T16:28:00.000-08:00

With Western opinion so gravitated towards the humility of Kosovar Albanians, we have one nation-state after another pushing each other over in whom is recognising the new state of Kosovo. They're lined up like children at an amusement park, itching to declare Kosovo the newest statelet under the aegis of Western civilisation.

"Hello Kosovo, make yourself at home. We're the EU, over there is NATO, (you remember them? They helped you slaughter those Serbs who were trying to inflict a genocide.) and here's someone you have to meet: Our emperor, Washington. Pssst, she calls the shots."

Or that's how the parody went. What is more interesting is the fact that Kosovo has NO legal basis on declaring independence but yet that has no bearing on the Western powers right about now. They feel the need to reward this little beacon of humanitarianism amongst the Serb animal that international law is not a prerequisite for such a maneuver.

Accompanying this little historic action were two very informative pieces on Counterpunch, one by George Szamuely and the other by Diane Johnstone. Both are stunning in its lucidy and very welcome in its rigidity, especially with the compliant media over the Kosovo encounter for almost a decade now. For years we've been satured with the adoration of Kosovar Albanians, while the demonisation of the Serbs, along with Milosevic had no quarter. Johnstone's piece focused on the "uniqueness" of Kosovo amongst other tiny territories that hope to gain independence but have not been given such the positive response as the Kosovar Albanians have. Here Johnstone quotes Roger Cohen who laments on what to do about the non-Albanians:

"But what about the Serbs who still live in the historic part of Serbia called Kosovo? Cohen takes care of that problem in a few words: "Some of the 120,000 Serbs in Kosovo may hit the road."

Ah. Truly a paradigm of humantarianism at its finest. Bomb them. Terrorise them. Ethnically cleanse the area. Then whoever is left can "hit the road".

Szamuely's article is even more stunning, which also features many parallels within Europe that hopes to gain independence. These secessionist movements have been suppressed, and no one has been recognising their efforts for statehood. Secondly, Szamuely accounts that Kosovo has far less legal options for independence than other territories such as South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria. In fact, the "uniqueness" of Kosovo is the glaringly obvious fact that it is backed by the US and the EU, along with a strategic military base in its centre. Thirdly, Serbia is the main hub for Kosovo, and since its declaration to secede, it definitely will face grippling shortcuts on its economy.

"A newly-independent Kosovo would have poor relations with Serbia and would be subjected to an economic blockade. Its electric grid is integrated within Serbia's electric grid. Its debt has been taken care of by Serbia."

So what if they are relying solely on aid: this is a new state, rejoice! It's amazing that only Vladimir Putin seems to be the only sane voice here amongst the public officials. The world is going mad and no one is stopping them.

Dangers ahead

But what does this mean for the rest of the world? Putin analysed correctly that "these double standards" are a terrible precedent that only shows bad faith for other separatists movements.

"Why do we promote separatism? For 400 years Great Britain has been fighting for its territorial integrity in respect of Northern Ireland. Why not? Why don't you support that?"

It's clear that the EU is forcing pressure on Russia, trying to limit its power across the former Yugoslavia. But what of other movements? What of the Chechens? The Cypriots? The South Ossetias? The Basques? Even the Quebecoix? Could they find parallels in the Kosovo model? Could they share in its "uniqueness"? Definitely it will send shockwaves throughout the world that little majorities could attempt to gain control in a hope to gain independence from the title nation that they believe is oppressing them. Territorial integrity? Hah. No way.

What about Palestine?

For too long now the Palestinians have been demanding their own independence. Too bad they do not share Kosovo's "uniqueness". Terrible, also, is the fact that Israel is the one who owns "uniqueness" in this part of the neighbourhood. What is too alluring is the lesson of the KLA, and the fact that now, almost nine years later, the actions of the KLA along with NATO helped created a favourable situation for Kosovar Albanians at the expense of the Serbs. Here's an excerpt from Szamuely's piece on Kosovo's treatment of Serbs:

'Kosovo's Serbs -- the few that remain -- live behind barbed wire and need armed escort whenever they step outside their enclaves. According to a recent European Commission report, "only 1 per cent of judges belong to a minority group and less than 0.5 per cent belong to the Serbian minority. Only six of the 88 prosecutors belong to minority groups." Overall, the report concluded, "little progress has been made in the promotion and enforcement of human rights."...

Kosovo Serbs fear that they will become a decoration to any central-level political institution with little ability to yield tangible results. The Kosovo Albanians have done little to dispel it."

Could this be a model for Palestinians to follow? Already Abbas is dismissing the notion. Why, didn't the PLO declare independence in '87?

"Abbas ruled out taking such a step unilaterally soon, saying he would pursue negotiations with the Israelis until an agreement is reached by the end of 2008, including a settlement on the status of occupied east Jerusalem."

He is really taking it too far now. Discussing East Jerusalem? Now that's a fat chance. Olmert already is procrastinating; and while he does that, more buildings are being constructed and more outposts are being erected in the West Bank. How inept can Abbas be that he plans to negotiate with the occupier, who dismisses him and his demands, and when he wakes up in Ramallah he finds more settlers in the West Bank.

"The Civil Administration has not taken any practical steps to prevent the new construction."

This is where he is placing his faith on to declare a viable Palestinian state? Not very likely, is it? What does he have to lose? I mean, declaring independence is surely a missive that would not even reach the negotiating table, but at least demand something more since Kosovo has done so much in such a little timespan. It's been forty years for the Palestinians under occupation. And it's not as if they haven't demanded freedom, have they? Kosovo has done, why not Palestine?

"For the US and the EU, Kosovar Albanians, having enjoyed almost nine years of UN administration and NATO protection, cannot be expected to wait any longer for their freedom, while the Palestinians, having endured over 40 years of Israeli occupation, can wait forever."

How truly cynical is that?

Yes. Kosovo and Palestine are not that similar; each has its own idiosyncrasies. But the only significant difference is the evident aid that goes to the Kosovars who are celebrating freedom against the Israeli war machine who are oppressing Palestinians. Kosovo is a Muslim majority, no? Why not show more of that steel and support another Muslim majority who wants freedom from a people who want to ethnically cleanse them? Isn't that parallel just? (Naturally, the Yugoslav government has been accused of such an action without any proof, while the Israelis do so overtly, even with international acclaim. I mean, look at Gaza.) Certainly if figures such as Richard Holbrooke and Roger Cohen testify to their sympathy for Muslim persecution at the hands of genocide whackos, they would do best to pinpoint Jerusalem, not Kosovo.

It's a perfect scenario: Kosovo Muslim majority declares independence followed by Palestine Muslim majority declares indepedence (in West Bank and Gaza). The US and EU all fight each other on who recognises them first. Idyllic. And it's not as if there aren't similarities between the both of them: Kosovo relies on aid and Serba; Palestine on aid and Israel; Kosovo is almost purely Muslim; Palestine's Arab population is almost purely Muslim (with the Christians dispersing); Kosovo was under threat of extinction" by Serbs; Palestine is under threat of pauperisation by Israelis. It's win-win.

But Kosovars are just mere pawns being played. They are duped, especially with the enlightening fact that their "democracy" is far from it. It's all under the mercy of Bosnia, the ICR, ESDP and the IMP, all under the tutelage of NATO. In fact, it's a "NATO Colony". Purely just theatre to fund support for Camp Bondsteel.

Terrorism Works

I must confess that I love the idea of precedence. If Iraq is bombed, what is stopping the US from doing the same to another country with fictitious weapons of mass destruction? If torture is legal in certain cases, why is it okay for the West to condemn other developing nations from praticising CIA taught strategies? If Kosovo declares independence, what's stopping the next separation movement from doing likewise? Despite what the counter-terrorists would want us to believe, Kosovo is the prime example of terrorism working. The KLA decimated the Serb minority, cowed them into their little areas, likened sometimes to "Bantustans" (sound familiar?), and now have pushed most of them out of Kosovo. These Serbs are so evil that they have no rights in the EU (also sound familiar?). Here we are, almost nine years later and they have their own state.

Jonathan Freedland wrote a rather naive piece about the Palestinian strategy. He advocates that for Palestinians to gain momentum, they have to undertake a non-violent approach. He was also echoing Mustafa Barghouti, who believes that a reactionary response to Israeli atrocities is not the way to gain the West's support. In light of Kosovo, it seems silly NOT to take a more harder stance against their occupier. After all, against a genocidal enemy, take matters into your own hands.

What is rather disappointing is in light of the numbers Barghouti stressed, that

"Palestinian freedom of movement is more restricted now than it was on the day of all those fine speeches. Now there are 561 checkpoints on the West Bank; in November there were 520. His figures showed an increase in Israeli attacks of 220% (largely, no doubt, in retaliation for those incoming Qassams). He counted 177 Palestinian deaths since Annapolis, the vast bulk in Gaza.

Yes, it was true that the confidence-building measure of prisoner releases happened: 788 Palestinians have been set free. But how much confidence could that build when 1,152 have been newly arrested since Annapolis?"

After citing those figures, he honestly feels that striking back is not an option? Now, I have to believe that Barghouti intends on "terrorism", ie Qassams being fired willy-nilly. But having highlighted the plight of the common Palestinian, he must feel empathy for the need to retaliate. If not then he is very silly at his request that Palestinians desist from resisting their occupier; isn't that the real evil here, the occupation, and not their victims?

We all want to stress how "balanced" we are by condemning arbitrary Qassam fire and suicide bombers: that really should not be stressed, or the need for it is certainly superfluous. Of course we dismiss such actions. But what about other actions that only really is a consequence of the occupier's policy that dehumanise the Palestinians? Freedland foolishly writes in parenthesis that Israel's attacks were "in retaliation". Apparently the Palestinians here are the aggressors. You could have fooled me but Freedland wants to contextualise that Israel is only "retaliating" from terrorist attacks. Aren't Palestinians allowed the same form of "retaliation"? Gideon Levy remarked that every Qassam fire was preceded by a Palestinian casualty in the Gaza Strip. Sounds like retaliation against the occupier, which they have every legal basis to do so, unlike Kosovo's declaration of independence.

"could compare their struggle to the Martin Luther King movement for civil rights, walking and marching for their freedom... the power of mass non-violence would be undeniable."

It's great that we can advocate such strong positions when they do not threaten his existence. It's safe for Freedland to map out what Palestinians should do without bearing the brunt of punishment at the hands of Israel. I know Freedland has the best of intentions but what is lacking is the fire that emphasises that Israel has no problem in trampling any form on non-violent protests. Think the first intifada; think of the revolts of past years; think of the second intifada and why it became so bloody; what about the protests at Bi'lin? What of Rachel Corrie? What of those prisoners whom Barghouti spoke of? Are they all prisoners became they were terrorists? Or did any of them advocate a non-violent struggle against their coloniser?

This debate reminds of Ray HaCohen's piece three years ago.

"There are thousands of Palestinian Gandhis out there, then: whole villages that demonstrate daily and peacefully against the robbery of their land and livelihood. Alas, their voices are unheard – because of the Israeli undercover soldiers who throw stones from within these peaceful demonstrations, and because of commentators and movie stars who then wonder, "Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?"

There are plenty of non-violent demonstrations: you have just have to be vigilent and search for them. They do not report certain things about the conflict: Palestinian civil disobedience is not what the world wants to read or hear. And what happens when they do protest?

"We've now got a clear confirmation of what Palestinian and Israeli peace activists have been saying all along: the Israeli army would not tolerate a Gandhi-style resistance."

Apparently Freedland is unaware of these demonstrations. I guess it's hard to see the reality from where he sits and types on his laptop. True, the Palestinians are left with little to stem the tide that is happening against them. The situation is grim, but by no means is non-violence the only way to stop Israel. It seems the way Freedland thinks that people will support Palestinians is if they altogether just lay down and get bulldozed while the international community sits on their hands and applauds Kosovar Albanians for doing the unthinkable, all the while Abbas negotiates with Olmert as the East Jerusalem is getting further and further from the final status talks. Har Homa gets bigger, and more Palestinian land is stolen right from their noses. Brilliant strategy there.

With the Kosovo secession, the KLA displayed what has been a cold strategem: that violence and terror do work. Yes, you have to have the proper imperial backer on your side, and if you have that, then you have all the cards. There have been few examples that do not follow this pattern: South Africa being one of them, and Northern Ireland. There are plenty of others, but South Africa is the one that comes closer to mind.

Nelson Mandela, the first black South African president, was a murderer. What would have happened if he were liquidated? Would the African National Congress succeeded without him? He did spend time in jail and was branded a "terrorist". Would he be alive today to see the fall of apartheid if he advocated non-violence? Would the Afrikaaners not have destroyed him if he wasn't so militant? Other examples are the IRA, the FLN and the FARC. What would Northern Ireland, Algeria and Colombia be if it weren't for these organisations advocating a strong resistance that meant arms and weapons against their coloniser and oppressor? Would these movements cease to exist if they were crushed like the Israelis imprison Palestinians by advocating non-violence and being passive to every member casualty?

Let's face it, the Palestinians do need some sort of deterrant. Right now they are a punching bag for Israelis, two-fold considering their Lebanon failure and Iran being emboldened by Iraq's strife and Washington's depleted military resources. The spectre of Martin Luther King and Gandhi is a strong one, and their message is never lost: but we're not dealing with a segregated America nor a past imperial giant in Britain, with an Indian nation that had a bigger majority than the Palestinians have. Plus we're still on the cusp of a public relations battle that has Palestinians on the wrong end of the stick, ie they are not "unique". While it's great to have a plan for the Palestinians to endure their grief with non-violent protests, it's not a realistic approach considering Freedland does not even know that such a movement has been existing for many, many years. And considering that a fellow American, who embodied the ideal of non-violent resistance was bulldozed to her death, her status is still being denied of heroism and in some circles viewed as a "terrorist sympathiser". What kind of a lesson is that to advocate non-violent demonstration when a prime example of it is demonised?

No, I am certainly not advocating a resort to terrorism. The acts of the KLA are reprehensible, and most of this is purely satirical. But Freedland wants to dictate how Palestinian should react to gain legitimacy, when the actual fact is that they already have legitimate concerns to gain support for their own independence. It is merely a given that the practice of terrorism, the launching of Qassams, and the mass calls for boycott are all the consequences of the occupation.

There is no realism involved when he states that "the power of mass non-violence would be undeniable". It is undeniable, but so is Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. They imprison some 10, 000 of them, many subjected to torture. And they are meant to take it lying down in the vain hope that the West will awaken to their suffering. What's forty years of occupation, two generations? When is it going to change, any time this year? Is there any hope for a change? Do they even talk about Palestine in the primacy elections? Do the candidates differ on the Israel Factor?

All that's missing is the "uniqueness".

Settlements are illegal

2008-02-17T12:41:00.000-08:00

With all the hubbub about the latest "terrorist" slain in Lebanon, a good piece from Ha'aretz revealed what we have been stating all along, that the settlements are in violation of international law.

"More than one-third of West Bank settlements were built on private Palestinian land that was temporarily seized by military order for "security purposes," according to a report by the Civil Administration that is being published here for the first time.

The settlements in question, which include Ariel, Kiryat Arba and Efrat, have tens of thousands of residents, and many have existed for decades. A security source termed this a "difficult statistic" that is liable to cause trouble for Israel both in Washington and its own courts."

So there we have the damning evidence, and that "more than one-third" which are home to "tens of thousands of residents" were built on Palestinian land, for the purposes of settlements. According to the article, seizure of land not for "military needs" are illegal, and that "at least 19 of the 44 settlements on the Civil Administration's list were established after 1979", when the Begin regime "decided that all new settlements or expansions of existing ones would be built only on state land", violates even Israeli law.

The settlements that fall within this boundary are numerous:

"Ariel, Efrat and Kiryat Arba - three of the largest West Bank settlements - the list includes major "ideological" settlements such as Ofra, Beit El, Psagot, Kedumim, Karnei Shomron, Elon Moreh and Shiloh; Jordan Valley settlements such as Gitit and Mechora; and even "quality of life" settlements such as Kfar Ruth, near Modi'in."

Also interesting is the fact that this information has been suppressed for so long because it might "damage the state's security and foreign relations." It even makes them more culpable towards these illegal actions, coined better by Attorney Michael Sfard saying it

"proves that systematic land theft for the purpose of establishing settlements was carried out via a fictitious and completely illegal use of the term 'military necessity.' The concealment of this information for all these years shows that the authorities also knew they were committing illegal acts."

The impact of settlements is one that should not be minimised by our media. Despite all the articles that congratulates the targeted assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, whom I had not heard of until his death that is quickly spiraling into a spin vs spin-better fluctuation, this policy to redraw the map of the West Bank into Israel's favour is one that should be at the forefront of every conference, every debate and every lecture speech. Not only has it been found of being in violation of Israel's own law of the land, the Geneva Convention is also strict on matters of land seizure.

"Article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from establishing settlements occupied by its nationals. And it prohibits population transfer that alters the character of the occupied land. Israel ignored the Convention and established more than 200 Jewish only settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem protected by the Israeli military. The media does not explain that most of Palestinian violence against the Israelis is triggered by the provocative presence of these settlements. Occupying power is not permitted to alter patterns of beneficial use of resources in the occupied land, but Israel has diverted most of the water from aquifers under the West Bank for use in Israel and the Jewish only settlements."

But what is most frustrating is the deafening silence we still get from the West over the settlements question; Harper does not talk about it, Bush only feigns on it every now and again, Rice is totally submissive, and Livni and Olmert prefer to deal with Gaza rather than stop what is going on in the West Bank. No mistakes about it: Gaza is important, but not in the pretext that Livni is speaking of, ie sending in the troops.

What of the settlements? What of the settlers? Right now, even more settlers are raiding the West Bank. Here's another report on the situation on the ground:

"Nine Israeli families who staked out homesteads in a valley deep in the West Bank, promised Friday to bring more settlers to the disputed area the Palestinians want for a future state, despite Israel's promises to the United States to stop settlement expansion...

The wildcat action at Maskiot, in the northern West Bank, was funded in part by a private U.S. group and is just one of recent Israeli actions to anger Palestinians as peace negotiators try to reach a final treaty."

Very gripping stuff when my neighbour south of me funds more and more settlements that destroys any hope for a Palestinian state, or is that hope really truly gone? Makes you wonder why Leviev is still being protested against since he is also prime funder for more settlements also.

What also catches my attention is this nugget of truth:

"Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Friday that the government had issued permits for construction of 307 Jewish homes in the contentious east Jerusalem neighborhood, of Har Homa, drawing fresh fire from one of the Palestinians' top peace negotiators.''

Yes. Olmert's goverment issued the permits for further construction; he's the guy who said that if there is no Palestinian state then they are left with an apartheid battle that will be the end of Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this make him some kind of sadist, that if he truly believed in what he said then he wants Israel to see its destruction? Or is it just more blanket statements that aim to appease and then just go ahead with the dismemberment of a viable Palestinian state?

What's it going to take for the advisors to notice all of this? Something tells me that it's going to be a very long wait until most Israelis turn into a questioner of Israel's failed policy and that, to quote Idith Zertal

"ominous presence of a most horrific historical event, how it has shaped a whole society, shaped a collective psyche, and served as a warrant for such [abuses]....Traumas are bad advisers...

The present is always creating a problem for us, for Israelis and Jews." (By which she included American Jews, too.) And the present is the time in which we must actually make our lives. The only way to peace for Jews is to "take responsibility for the present and the near future."

Even today we're still swimming in the plethora of Holocaust memories: the blank cheques of all blank cheques that helps cripple Palestinians and any who dare oppose Israel's bulldozing of Palestinian land. Testiments to how life is in the West Bank are available for all to see, and it's not the pretty picture that Israelis would like to tell you that Palestinians are much better off with the occupation than without it. We need no statistics on the injured, the dead and the disparity. We've seen it all before. And yet it still does not pierce the bubble that the world seems to be floating on.

We're still stuck on the same old routine here. Isn't there meant to be a candidate race going on? I don't even see the world Iraq, let alone hear about the Palestinians. In fact, most are more attuned to Obama's politics and background rather than talk about curbing Israel's landgrab in the West Bank.

When will people stand up for justice for the Palestinians? Here we have the evidence, but where's the anger and outrage? We all can't be paralysed by some notion of sympathy for the Israelis, can we? Let's take a stand and demand that Palestinians deserve a decent living. That means better water, freer borders and free from harassment and checkpoints and roadblocks and ID cards and house demolitions and targeted assassinations and olive tree uprooting and better sewage control and rights to aid and food and access to the water and...

Don't let them be silent on the cause. We can't condemn them to this struggle for a lifetime.

Palestinians should matter to everyone

2008-02-16T10:58:00.000-08:00

Maybe it is because of an absence of two weeks that has seen me sick with a flu that left me rathe inoperable to anything remotely close to being effectual towards the conflict, or perhaps it is just the malaise that one feels when they reach a certain age and they are encountered by life riddles because they are subpar in comparison to their childhood dream, but lately I have felt lackadaisical on the whole subject and the effort that it requires of myself that justifies its presence on my life. Because of this (as well as other complications such as a cold that doesn't want to go away), I was missing from last week's demonstration at the Israeli consulate to demand the siege of Gaza end. Always not one to shy away from accountability, I do feel a little ashamed that I was unable to attend such a matter that I have felt so strongly about. I wanted to show my solidarity but was not present, even after I said that I would go.

After the no-show, as well as bitter winter, the draining feeling did not go away. Milling through the archives, sifting over and over of articles throughout the two weeks, attempting to find a topic that I could find something to write about; and it's not as if there isn't anything short of incidences that happens. In the end, I came around to the same dead end. I had nothing of total interest that provoked any real thought into the matter. Sure, we can all write about the Gaza strangulation; but better journalists with better knowledge and contacts do so already. Mind you, of course Gaza should be written about, but that doesn't mean that it would always be read, and if so, not by people who matter. What good is hearing another UN official talk about its "grim and miserable" situation? Is another EU official going to change the situation when he speaks of a Palestinian state and calls to "remove the blockade on Gaza because there must be movement for goods and people"? Could another diplomat talk of the bitter reality in Gaza and hope to make Israel relent its frustration?

There. I had had enough and toyed with the idea of slipping back into the numbness of simplicity that consisted of work, family, car troubles, awful television, and a Knicks team that doesn't win. After all, wouldn't the situation be the same even if I didn't write on this blog? It was the same before I read politics; things only gradually became worse for the Palestinians. What if I decided to just stop the studying in scholar, stop the research on alternative media and blogs, and cease devoting so much time to a conflict that has no real bearing on how my life turns out? Would it matter to those nuts who comment on Ha'aretz or the people marching in Bi'lin against the wall?

A few thoughts to myself and then I remembered an article I read by Bill Fletcher. A past president of TransAfrica Forum and the editor of The Black Commentator, he titled his piece "Palestine Matters". And it reinforced my assumptions that what I do really does matter, that what I read has an impact however small and insignificant it may seem to me. While there are many passages that I want to quote, here's one that struck the chord to an estranged activist feeling the pinch of debility:

"With each atrocity against the Palestinian people comes another battle cry from one or another part of the planet, not only against Israel, but against their unconditional backers in Washington, DC. And those battle cries should raise our concern."

Of course I read and hear the tired old cliches that having a stake in the issue will make the world a safer place. Yes, there are many valid points that support this notion; Osama talks of the occupation by foreigners on holy enshrines in the Muslim world; the many grievances that US policy afflicts on the Middle East, especially the poor, which only is more agitative when juxtaposed with the talk of "democracy" and "freedom"; the looting of resources that falls into the pockets of Western fatcats at the expense of the Third World poor, which then spirals into environmental concerns; and the one-sided "balance" that has Israel crushing the Palestinians all full view of their Arab brothers. All of this could be stopped if the Palestinians were given a viable state. Then again, we don't know that do we, as this world seems to work in vacuums: the issue of Palestine might be solved for a period, but there is still Iraq, South America, North Korea and Africa that is still falling under the rubric of US foreign policy and "free trade". Their grievances could tip over and create another struggle that has the truth miscontrued and another conflict that could last generations. And Osama could still be a thorn in our asses, yet a smaller one that might have him ineffectual. But what seems to be the most pressing security issue for most here is the one that is near their doorstep, not terrorism per se. The domestic always has more focus rather than the foreign.

Such doubts had me questioning whether it really was time to put it all to rest and be another robot like my fellow co-workers who just talk about the usual topics (cars, girls, sports). Then late Edward Said, who had written a post-article on Orientalism that appeared in The Palestine Chronicle really took me back to where the roots of the conflict began (that is revisiting Orientalism and The Question of Palestine), and reacquainted me with an intellectual that inspired me to really study further what consists of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I was reminded

"that every domain is linked to every other one, and that nothing that goes on in our world has ever been isolated and pure of any outside influence. We need to speak about issues of injustice and suffering within a context that is amply situated in history, culture, and socio-economic reality. Our role is to widen the field of discussion."

I believe if Edward were alive today he would still be just as explosive as he was back in the 70s and give no quarter to anyone who dared justify the actions in Gaza. He would have no mercy for Mahmoud Abbas who seems to be encouraging the rift between Fatah and Hamas, thus destroying what could have been a strong unified front against the occupier. Everyone knows that a fragmented Palestinian society can only paralyse their fight for self-determination, not enhance it. And having rereading Edward Said's most provoking work, it only made me realise moreso that the question of Palestine is something that does matter to everyone, more or less, anyone who prides themself as a human.

"The paramount thing is that the struggle for equality in Palestine/Israel should be directed toward a humane goal, that is, co-existence, and not further suppression and denial."

It echoes within me that it is not only for self-determination, identity and awareness that the Palestinians should be recognised and matter, but one of the most importance is of an egalitarian goal, that Palestinians and Israelis should "co-exist", that they are both of equal matter and both have equal rights as a human.

Now that isn't rocket science: it's all been instilled in all of us early on that we're all the same, we all bleed whether we're black, white, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, Muslim, Asian, Native, etc. So why is it so difficult to realise that Palestinians are only asking for what is their human right and that is to be seen as equal to their counterparts, the Jews? We can all state that there are certain politics at hand here, and that it's not as simple as that; but why not? Was not the South Africa model built upon the foundation that the blacks had the same rights as the whites and had no right to be treated that way? How about the Irish? The abolishment of slavery and segregation? The civil rights movement? It's not a case-by-case basis where we lessen the impact of the struggle because "Jews were persecuted" by the Holocaust and therefore they are bound to have their "Jewish state" which is their sanctuary from anti-Semitism, an affliction that is a world-wide disease since Jews are so oppressed. Those statements are made even without any scrutiny considering that Jews sit as CEOs and major stockholders, and even sit at important seats at the UN and in Washington and are seen on movies screens as leading actors and actresses. Anti-Semitism really outcasted them, didn't they?

It's a given that there are numerous boundaries as to why the issue is what it is. A plaintive media over the suffering of Israel's population against the propaganda that the Palestinians face (as terrorists and extremists and Islamofascists) does its job in vilifying Palestinians to no limit, and we are satured with phony scholars and experts who claim to know what is best to do in the conflict. We have talk upon talk about what to do with the Qassams, and yet no discussion as to why the Palestinians have any grievance at all in firing those rockets. Right now, we're on the brink of an invasion into the Gaza Strip just to help the residents of Sderot, meanwhile the Hamas offer for (ANOTHER) ceasefire is again ignored. Why would they cynically put their own citizens at risk just for their own political advancement? Is it worth it to destroy the Palestinians and endanger more Sderot residents just to have another "victory" moment?

Sure, there was a suicide bomber. But why do they become suicide bombers? Are we so immune to their situation that we simply ignore why the Palestinians are angry in the first place? Why would someone voluntarily take their own life just to make a hapless point against their occupier? Or have we simply forgotten that they are occupied? Because after forty years, we tend to assume that it has been like this forever and that there was no occupation to be begin with. Isn't that the way the coloniser is working here? Here we are, in the affluence of technology and free media, and we're still backward on who we're condemning? It's not the Palestinians who are building new houses in East Jerusalem, is it? Didn't Ehud Olmert already state Israel was not upholding its end of the bargain as proscribed by the Annapolis conference? So why are we not stopping this? Why are we still talking of Qassams and an extremist Hamas? Does East Jerusalem have no bearing on why Palestinians get mad? Does no letup on the roadblocks and checkpoints contribute to their hatred of Israel? Some might not be able to remove Israel from Jewish, especially since they are adamant that they be recognised as a Jewish state. This only contributes further to the dormant anti-Semitism, hence only exacerbating what is already a touchy subject. I have not even mentioned the settlements and their overzealous supporters that claim that they own this piece of land.

And the more you read into the conflict, and the more the truth escapes, the more you feel the need to write about it, to condemn it, and to say "that this is not right and that Palestine matters". Because weren't we in a position like this before, where the truth was so askewed that people did not want to listen and just go on with their day-to-day lives? No one is going to accuse anyone of being a little Eichmann, but being silent when we know that things are so bad for the Palestinians is like a green light for the people in power to do what they want. Sure, when it affects us personally then we want to stand up for our rights. But what about the ones whose rights are impinged on already? Where's our altruism? We care about the environment, the poor on our streets (well, some of us do) and our starving children. Here's a case where their starvation is all part of the game and we don't want to think about it.

And who's to stay that it doesn't affect us personally? We pay for it out of our pockets too, you know.

This may all seem a little confusing, even to myself I have run on and on and have no real point. But I figure that why I do this is because I believe I have an obligation to fight for justice whether and whomever it effects. And the Palestinians are the ones who I find to be the most persecuted in today's world. We have all heard the discussions, the one-state versus the two-state, whether they are their own victims or whether the world sees them the wrong way. But what should not be lost is this is a struggle that we can all identify with, whether we are affected by it personally or not (meaning Jewish, Muslim or even a minority). The world is being cast as the elite vs the poor, and sadly the majority of us is on the wrong side of it. That means me too. And it's this policy of usurpation, colonisation, removal and control that Israel uses over the Palestinians that also has some form in our own lives too. The people in power take land, money, and attempt to control our movement as well as our thinking by kowtowing the media. It's a little more extreme in the Palestinian case, and hence why we should all be more vocal to their demand to be recognised and have a viable state.

Right now, the media has it painted the wrong way and most of us are buying into it. And the longer this happens the longer justice will be put off, and that means more of the violence that only destroys more of Palestinian livelihood. I definitely fall very short of Edward Said, but our "humanism" will be lost if we let Israel completely remove the Palestnians from memory and from reality. They occupy not only the land, but also the important circles that only further Palestinian destruction. Why else do we have three people left in the US election that are trying to outflank each other on who is more pro-Israel? Why else do they attempt to strifle conversation on the Israel Lobby and aim to derail the Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer book? Why else do they try to apologise for Israel's transgressions against Palestinians or attempt to say that Israel owns the entire land because of their pious idiocy? Did we not read about a time long ago called Manifest Destiny where another sort of pious moron attempt to eradicate another sort of Native from their homeland because they felt it was their God-given right to do so? Does Benny Morris' words that the Nakba had to happen for another civilisation to thrive mean nothing to anyone anymore at the height of human rights advocacy and Hollywood drama for blood diamonds (or settlement diamonds to be more accurate)? Weren't the same conclusions met that such actions were a travesty to humanity, even something closely horrific as a Holocaust but only against another target? Aren't we meant to speak out against such actions that destroy a population?

Sitting here and typing this, I always question why I write about Palestine, and I always come to the same conclusion: that it is the truth as I believe it to be, and it is my job to try to air it to anyone who is interested. Debate about the topic? Bring it on. It's all a challenge and this is no easy feat as I'm not the most read of scholars just yet; I still need a few more years under my belt to even come close. Marching against Israeli atrocities? You bet. Signing petitions? Show me where.

I do feel now that I am a part of this issue that I must partake in the Palestinian struggle. Of course it is not just narrowed to their fight, as there are local issues to battle, as well as other foreign conflicts that I feel strongly about. But none more than the Palestinians. I know it's just a minor detail but most like to say that it is in Israel's interest to have a viable Palestinian state; well we can stop doing everything just for Israel's interest. In fact, we can even state that it's Israel's interest to continue with things the way they are because the Palestinians are backed against (three) walls with no one giving two shits about them. And I cannot sit here and let life go by while they endure their strangulation, knowing what I know now.

I can try to continue to relate how the Palestinian fight is one that resembles the blacks of South Africa, segregation, and other Third World struggles against imperialism. And that's all true, in a sense too; but many other more indepth studies have been written on such subjects and I could not do it justice here in my tiny little space. But Palestine is a question that is deep within myself that needs to be answered again and again; it's as if it's my conscious and talking about it is what really defines the "humanism" inside of me, the moral vicissitudes that I experience, and the voice that says that I am on the right track no matter how many obstacles are erected in front of me. In the end, Palestine is what defines the human struggle for equality for me, and how it can be so decontextualised and misinterpreted to fit into someone else's benefit, even at the greatest expense of someone right there next to them.

Yes, the fight for equality, the battle for truth, and the war for justice: the paradigm is Palestine. Nowhere is the playing field more uneven, nowhere is the debates more polemic, and nowhere is it where the people who matter are more silent about it than Palestine. It's all here people: settlements, Security Council, ICJ, Israel Supreme Court, torture, targeted assassinationas, checkpoints, terrorists, corruption, dissidents, collaborators, satraps, enclaves, Bantustans, apartheid, security walls, olive trees, beaches, fishery, airspace, weapons, army, settlers, protestors; it's all here and the battle for truth is being waged.

And we're on the tilting point right now. More and more speak out, which leads to more strongarm tactics to curb the criticism. Zionism is on the wane. Obama is seen as the candidate for a new Jewish crowd that criticises Israel's policy against the Palestinians. And Walt and Mearsheimer's book is a bestseller, as well as Jimmy Carter's. There was a giant call for Israeli Apartheid Week which still hits major cities across the globe. All of this does not bode well for the Jewish State, especially since a UN official stated that a "two-state solution has passed".

This follows the break at Rafah just over two weeks ago. The hold Israel has is slipping. We could all be cogs in the machine that ultimately brings down a state that discrimmates and champions Jews over Arabs. We could all be a part of history and witness another falling wall and another Soviet-like breakdown of empire, or perhaps another apartheid regime destroyed in favour of equality for all and justice to the Palestinians.

I cannot say that what I do does make a difference to those in Gaza and the Palestinians in the West Bank and the diaspora. I also cannot even say that it makes a difference to anyone here at the moment besides the few who I know. But living in such narrow parameters in not the way it works when you write about politics because it could only belittle what the truth is, whatever you believe it be. And that is not why we write on such matters. I do it because I feel it is of great importance that the world has to know what is going on; whether I get read or not is an afterthought as I know I can only do what I can do to the best of my ability as I have no output on other people's lives. Yet, the truth has a chain effect without pontificating: the more people know it, the more they feel compelled to spread the word. I feel that compulsion.

Just a few days ago, we had the Australian Prime Minister apologise to the Aborigines, whom they treated so abasively in years past, much similar to how other settler states dishonours its indigeous people. Who knows, maybe some activists also had doubts as to whether they actually made a difference to the Aboriginal struggle two to three decades ago. So it may not happen today, tomorrow, or even in my lifetime. But eventually, the Palestinians will see their reward for all of their struggle. And in the end, that's why I write, and that is why I have a stake on Israel-Palestine.

Obama feels the sting

2008-02-02T20:21:00.000-08:00

Being the candidate with the most diversity on background (as well as havnig a name that is eerily too familiar to a most-wanted terrorist), Barack Obama's advantage to his (potential) minority constituency is also his most vulnerable. A son of a black man and borne from a Kenyan woman, Obama's pedigree is unmatched by any past presidential candidates: a field dominated by privileged white men. (Ironically, this year's campaign sees a privileged black man running against a privileged white woman.) And it is this cultural heritage that Obama has in his arsenal that makes him more progressive than most, believing in egalitarianism disregarding race, religion, or any denomination. Having such an outlook on politics made him state that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinians." However, that poses a problem when you apply it to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and one that is really getting Obama in a bind planning his next step to appease the Jewish vote; or as Michael Lerner put it:

"Apply that to the Middle East and you get policy inclinations very different from those which have been insisted upon by the Israel Lobby, supported by most of the establishment Jewish institutions, and through the power of their organized pressure, have become the dominant policy supported by both parties in rare unanimity.

Obama’s problem is that his spiritual progressive worldview is in conflict with the demands of the older generation of Jews who control the Jewish institutions and define what it is to be pro-Jewish..."

Although his position has softened to be molded into a President that is befitting of past ones (ie supportive of a bellicose Israel), he can't seem to shake off the vultures pecking at his background. Being the candidate with the lowest Israel Factor rating left alive in the race (in actuality, his rating has steadily increased in the last couple of months from a proud 3 to a moderate 5), Israel's best friends want to take him down so as to level the playing field, making the few candidates available to be the best for Israel (ie McCain and Clinton). It is no secret that most hawks of the Israeli-kind prefers Hillary over Barack, and they feel the need to take him down a peg for fear of losing their hold on what could be billions of dollars lost in aid (which is a dumbfounded fear since Obama would still need to pass it through Congress, and it remains to be seen whether Obama is genuine about his recent sycophancy or not). Why despite being an overt Christian, Obama is being accused of the worst of all religions: Muslim!

"Such rumors, he [Obama] said, are absolutely false. I have never practiced Islam; I was raised by my secular mother. I have been a member of the Christian religion and have been an active Christian. I was sworn in with my hand on my family Bible, and have been pledging allegiance since I was three years old...

When Doug Bloomfield, a columnist for Jewish newspapers and popular lecturer on the pro-Israel circuit, spoke in south Florida last week, he was astonished by what he encountered.

Anonymous e-mails and not-so-anonymous charges by some Jewish leaders about Sen. Barack Obama’s alleged Muslim past have started gaining real traction in the increasingly furious battle for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, he said."

It is saying alot of today's politics that a smear against a Presidential candidate is to call him a Muslim. Wow. Yes, it's important for Obama to clear the air on his religion; well, on second thoughts, is it really THAT important? I thought the US was meant to be a secular state? Why would Obama's religion matter, even if the accusation, as demeaning as that was, really, it was a real low-blow there, were true? I would find it very compelling news if they accused Clinton of being Jewish because of her very pro-Israel stance, and how that would be a real aberration on her ability to govern (we all know it isn't, as she seems to be doing a good job of being terrible just on her campaign route alone). Since there has been only one President that was Catholic, and none from the Islamic faith, Jew, or Native tribe, maybe a different God might really instill fear amongst the Americans.

What the real shame here is not only the pathetic Israeli nuts who aim to smear anyone whom they believe threatens their hold on the Presidency and Congress, but on Obama himself for not capitalising on such a preposterous vile act by the Israel Lobby functionaries. This is what has become of Presidential candidates? Spineless yellowbellies that have no decency to stand up for, not only themselves, but by those who may follow in their footsteps, just to slip into the good part of the Oval Office, and for what? Are they going to change policy? Are they going to make a historic peace? Or are they just going to stagnate like so many before them? Aren't they sick and tired of being bullied by a bunch of "ideological zealouts and bigots"? M.J. Rosenberg does not stop there, as he nails the paramount failure of today's candidates:

"Candidates are not dumb... They understand that you can’t promote change in the Middle East while parroting organizational talking points...

Candidates need to realize that the political insiders who are demanding that they stick to tried and failed formulas are not so much concerned with Israel as they are determined that their standing as would-be influence peddlers not be challenged...

Meanwhile, of course, Israel’s travails continue. The very policies pushed on public officials and candidates by supposedly pro-Israel advocacy groups have produced disaster for Israel. They ensured that U.S. assistance to Abu Mazen’s Palestinian Authority would be so stingy that Hamas would beat Fatah in the Palestinian elections. They supported only Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza but not a negotiated agreement with the Palestinians that would have gotten Israel out of Gaza without transforming it into a terror launching pad. They pressured the Bush administration not to insist on the immediate dismantling of the illegal outposts and checkpoints not needed for Israeli security even though such actions would have boosted Abbas and harmed Hamas. They encouraged neither prisoner exchanges nor cease-fires, nor a permanent settlements freeze, oblivious to how they were strengthening Hamas. In short, these status quo positions—which candidates are pressured to endorse—have done nothing for Israel, other than to perpetuate the misery typified by the words Gaza and Sderot."

You know why they do nothing, I know why they do nothing, WE ALL seem to know why they do nothing (as pointed out by Walt and Mearsheimer and the bubble that is being burst slowly), and yet we're still stuck at where we were back in Truman days. We got brief respites by Eisenhower and Carter (until he caved), and then Bush senior (and then they made him lose), but the rest has been bad news for Palestinians. When are we going to demand that enough is enough for these talking robots?

How I wished Obama had a different response to such an attack against his religion. I figure Obama could have gotten an upper hand by being more direct at who was attacking him, and questioning the rationale for the targeting of his religious beliefs. He really dropped the ball here for ever gaining some kind of cosmetic support from myself. I do hope that he is more than geniune in his concern about the Palestinian plight, but then again, even Condoleezza Rice has expressed despair at the conditions of the West Bank, and she let Lebanon burn back in 2006 as part of the "birthpangs of a new Middle East".

He is in such a tizzy about being cast as pro-Israel that he is selling out something that must have been instilled in him by his minority parents. Why didn't he stand up and be accounted for? He left a whole bunch of Muslims out to dry and made himself look like a weasel that was trying to slither back into the race. This is the lengths it takes to get into the good books of the Israel Lobby, going from statements by Obama that was cited in the first paragraph to signing letters that gives Israel the right to impose punishment on the Gaza Strip. Well, if nobody is suffering more than them EXCEPT for the residents of Sderot so it's okay for Israel to make them suffer more. It's easy as pie.

Being supportive of Israel is getting too convuluted. Gershom Gorenberg put it plainly:

"Being pro-Israel does not require backing the most bellicose possible Israeli position, anymore than being "pro-American" requires backing the war in Iraq. To be "pro" means to support, to want a country to survive and flourish...

For an American administration to be pro-Israel does not mean adopting the apocalyptic foreign policy of John Hagee's Christians United for Israel. (Mike Huckabee gave his pre-Christmas sermon at Hagee's San Antonio church). It does not mean outdoing Bush in finding neo-con advisers (see again: Giuliani). It does mean a considerably different policy than what the Democratic candidates have yet advocated. Maybe if we can define "pro" more sensibly, the policy next January will also be productive."

But it all seems to be missing from the dialect here. They all talk about domestic policy; Social Security, Healthcare, Border controls, and even foreign policy by Kyoto and Iraq, and they debate about them, but never Israel. The support is overwhelming that they have one another stepping over each other trying to get in the frontlines of being who's more Pro-Israel. Isn't it time for a change? Has the Gaza exodus counted for nothing? Has the call for Israel's settlements to stop immediately been removed from negotiations? Why bother with all the Annapolis bullshit even if you aren't going to bolster your own satrap to be viewed as a saviour of Palestinians? He can't even match the success of an isolated political party that has no aid aside from Syria and Iran. Syria and Iran? We're talking about the US and Israel, one the empire of the world, the other the hegemon of the Middle East, and Abbas cannot defeat a Hamas that has small solidarity from Syria and Iran?

Perhaps Obama should ask himself why he didn't take more of a hard line against his detractors. We all know it was out of line to do such a thing against him and he should have aimed for the jugular and taken off the head of the snakes. A more fitting response would have been,

"No I am not Muslim, as I have stated it in numerous occasions that I am a Christian. As a son of a Muslim though, I find these accusations quite destatable, especially in the context of the impending nominations. What do these 'critics' of mine hope to achieve by such a slander, if you could even define it as one? Do they want to depict that Muslims are unfit for the seat of the Presidency? Are they insinuating that, if I were a Muslim, that I am not a decent candidate to vote for to run our country, who prides itself on pluralism, egalitarianism, secularism and democracy? Would they believe that I could not respect the words of our forefathers who gave birth to our most glorious of nations, that a Muslim only knows authoritarianism, violence and the word of the Koran practised in day-to-day lives?

Let me ask you this: would it make a difference if I were a Muslim, if I prayed to a different God, if I worshipped a different book, would that change your vote, America? I was taught to believe that we, as a people of the greatest democracy on earth, saw every being as equals, whether they be black, white, Asian, Native, woman, man, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or atheist, and that any one of us could be a leader of this great nation. Would it make a difference if any of the former were among today's candidates today?

How much does it say about our leaders that no one has come to excoriate the authors of such a defamation against me? How much does it say about our society of 'pluralism' that accusing myself of being Muslim would somehow be of consequence in certain matters of governance? How much does it say about those 'critics' and their intentions on who they want to demonise, and who they want you to fear most, and who they want you to view as the ones who does not have your best interests at heart? How much does it say about those 'critics' true nature about their politics that they want you to view me as a vote for 'Muslims', meaning, a vote for extremism, anti-Americanism, and hatred?

And how much does it say about you if you believe any of their charges against me?

Where were you when they blew up the wall?

2008-01-24T18:42:00.000-08:00

We all remember the scene when the Berlin Wall was finally torn down, marking a historic moment in the twentieth century when time stood still and we all could recall the tiniest detail of where we were and what we were doing. Another date that encapsulates the same recollection is 9/11, where we felt surrealism at its most perverse when we witnessed smoking towers tumble, turning into ashes. Thursday January 24th, 2008, is set to be another landmark on the calender and with good reason. Nothing is a more gripping image than a massive wall being broken down, and earlier this morning (or late last night my time) in Rafah, the barrier was blown up with a few blasts, enabling Gazans the freedom that they have been aching for since June. Here's coverage of the extraordinary incident by Al-Jazeera English:

Only two days ago I wrote about the embarrassing situation that has the international community blaming the Palestinians about the latest Israeli decision to put Gaza in a complete blackout. Amongst the agony of Gazans who have been subject to total closures and at times, the perfect laboratory to try out new weapons, we have the EU, Israel and now even a Presidential candidate bending over backward to appease Israel and its feared supporters. As the images of Palestinians having a brief taste of freedom, Barack Obama is showing just what kind of steel he is made of by declaring to Ambassador Khalilzad that Israel had no option but to hermetically seal Gaza. The letter is making its rounds in the blogosphere, querying as to what Obama can accomplish with such a cowardly line. The answer: votes.

The joyous scenes is following closely with Martin Luther King Day, evoking his much cited "I Have a Dream" speech in where he bellows that "We are free at last." Yes, Palestinians finally have broken the prison that has caged them in since Hamas took control of the Strip. Streams of thousands piled into Egyptian Rafah, and stocked up on what they could get their hands on; cheese, concrete, iron, oil. diesel, cigarettes, foam mattresses, cleaning materials, flour, glass plates, mats, blankets; nothing was too scarce for these Gazans. Rafah had not seen anything like it before, as people came in droves, as well as donkey and carts, in order to taste some form of autonomy. Hosni Mubarak stated that they were "hungry" as he ordered his troops to help Gazans load up on supplies and usher them back to the crossing. That piece of altruism is shocking considering Egypt has done plenty to allocate the suffering of Gazans on Hamas, as well as collaborate with the occupier that this is the best thing to do for their security. Cairo has been seeing protests about their role in the closure for months, and it seems that with the prisonbreak, it would have been too embarrassing in front of a live connected media to deny these Palestinians some sort of relief. Mubarak has problems already; a confrontation with ordinary Palestinians just days after human rights organisations expressing deep concern over their plight would have been a wedge in his presidency.

And how ironic is it that Israel, the US and the West is blaming Hamas for the wreckage wreaked on Gaza, saying it's Hamas' fault that Palestinians are living with no electricity, no sewage control, no water, etc. that Hamas is the one responsible for setting them free of Israel's strangehold. Amira Hass reports:

"Hamas operatives had been sawing away the foundations of the wall between Egyptian and Palestinian Rafah for a few months to make it easier to blow it up when the time came, a source close to the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) in Rafah told Haaretz Wednesday.

A central Hamas operative partially confirmed the report, although he told Haaretz it was PRC operatives who had prepared to breach the wall, while Hamas policemen did not interfere. In any case, Hamas has for months been discussing the need to take the initiative in ending the siege of Gaza.

Apparently, after four days of hermetic closure, following months of siege, the planners believed the political and social conditions were ripe to bring down the iron wall that Israel had put up."

What we have here now is a problem: how can the world continue to blame the suffering on Hamas when it is they who seem to be the only one concerned about the Palestinians? How can we continue to accuse them of selfishness, cutting their own electricity for "propaganda purposes" and isolate them when they blow up a wall that has encased Gazans to their worst nightmare? How can we stop Gazans from responding positively to Hamas when they do so many things that help them?

That is the dilemma now that is posed for the West. Hamas has done what no other body was able to do: give relief to Palestinians, give them access to aid and supplies, and most importantly, give them (a brief sense of) freedom. This latest event has bodly defined what Palestinians have been saying all along: the world is indifferent to their suffering. All the lip service about two-states, refugees, and freedom has led them to a closed area that is one of the most densely populated in the world. The world looks on by, talks the good talk while doing nothing to stop Israeli atrocities that claim more and more lives. We sit in horror as Olmert overtly claims that his policy is a collective punishment, and yet the international community does nothing about it. In fact, it does worse than nothing: it praises the oppressor for dealing with it swiftly! Now that is hubris.

The suffocation of the Gazans as a strategy by the West to weaken Hamas culminated at the Rafah border. With stunning clarity, the explosions that broke down the barrier were the metaphor that highlighted the failure of the international consensus. Only uncanny timing can explain Kathleen Christison's article on the illegitimacy of the "international consensus" (IC) as a broker in the Israel-Palestine conflict appearing on the same date that the wall fell, focusing on how the IC has failed in even accounting for a Palestinian commentary on peace talks and negotiations. Christison is scathing on the purposes of the IC:

"The international community does not initiate policies; it merely parrots and goes along with the positions promoted by the centers of international power, in this case the U.S. and Israel.

There is in fact no international consensus supporting two states for Palestine-Israel. Those who cite UN Security Council Resolution 242 as the basis...did not even mention Palestinians except as "the refugee problem" and clearly did not put forth a proposal for two states in Palestine-Israel."

The advocacy of a one-state solution is consistently criticised by two-staters because of an agreement by the IC that two-states is what the world can accept. But the IC has always been dormant on Palestinian demands; hence the IC is only a lapdog for the superpowers who dictate policy of the conflict, aka the US and Israel since the fall of the Soviet Union.

What has the IC done for Gaza? Nothing but jargon and rhetoric. The UN is inept and Europe only wants to placate the US and Israel. Canada is silent, China is indifferent as they have nothing to gain, Russia is ineffective and Australia is mute on the topic. Six months went by and Gaza was a massive prison with the IDF exercising impugnity on helpless Palestinians. They turned off the lights, bombs flew and Gazans were starved; the IC sat on their hands and gave Israel a pat on the back for stealthly dealing with the irritating Qassams. Have we forgotten that Qassams are still being launched despite the sanctions and blockades? Or the narrative that Qassam fire was preceded by IDF-inflicted deaths? Where are the results that would justify this collective punishment that is a violation of the Geneva Accords?

Without a doubt the Rafah breach is a bitter rebuke to not only the IC but also on Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party. While Abu Mazen propped up his phony government to play the game of peacetalk with Olmert and Bush, he candidately embraced the IC's dismissal of anything Gaza-related. Annapolis is the perfect paradigm of this: constructed and supervised by the two heavyweights directing orders to the beaten. Gaza was not even mentioned in Annapolis. It is a rude awakening to Abu Mazen as he struggles to gain any hint of success through his process of engagement (or collusion?) while Hamas took a big stride for Palestinian resistance. Israel maintains its construction in the West Bank and violence has increased during the Annapolis timeframe: this is what the Palestinians have gained when playing peace with the occupier and its most ardent supporter (and exporter of arms and aid). This is what they have struggled for? More housing for Israelis? More land theft? More grievances and lost trees and crops?

Now Abbas faces a test that he has to match Hamas' resolve and message that the IC, US and Israel do not have the Palestinians' best interest at heart. The Palestinians have taken it upon themselves to break free of the entrapments and impasses that has afflicted them for so long. They were not meant to take matters in their own hands; the elite is meant to resolve this issue for them. But you could forgive them into thinking that the world has forgotten about them. Jeff Halper testifies of the Palestinian temperment of not giving in:

"Not only have the Palestinians experienced the dehumanization all oppressed and colonized peoples experience, not only have they been made into the embodiment of the rich and powerful's greatest fear, evil "terrorists" who may tear down their privileged "civilization," but they have been turned into guinea pigs...

And yet the Palestinian people -- and in particular those who remain sumud, steadfast, in Palestine -- continue not only to resist but to surprise and confound its would-be Israeli master at every turn. Despite unlimited control, a complete monopoly over the use of force, utter callousness and a vaunted Shin Beit, Israel's military intelligence, Palestinians vote as they want, resist, carry on their daily lives with dignity -- and blow huge holes in the walls and policies constructed in order to imprison and defeat them."

Certainly the fight is not over. Egypt will close the border, Israel will remain its tight squeeze on Hamas, and the world will try to isolate them again. But the piercing of the bubble might shake a few people to realise that Gazans are not living normal lives and that Israel is not being a benevolent occupier. Annapolis is on thin ice as of this moment and Hamas may have made the West take them seriously. There is plenty of resistance against the other wall that demarcates the West Bank into swiss cheese. They stand up to their bullies every day demanding justice. The world has been shamed by the Palestinians: Will they take this notice of despair and respond this time?

Who's being duped?

2008-01-22T20:02:00.000-08:00

January 19th:

"My driver tonight informed me all gas stations in Gaza are out of gas. All gas in Gaza enters via Israel, which directly or indirectly controls all of Gaza’s borders. Two days ago Israel allowed the last shipment in.

Yesterday, an empty government building was bombed by an F-16. Over forty civilians were wounded, mainly children. One woman was killed. Most of them were near the building attending a wedding...

The UN’s food aid trucks are being prevented from entering Gaza as well...

Bakeries have closed, they are out of flour...

Electricity comes and goes but tonight I have the honor of turning off my own lights as I go to sleep.

January 20th:

"1:57 minutes we have left before the power is shut off in all of Gaza. Most of the power lines from Gaza’s main electricity station have already run dry, two lines remain...

People are panicking and buying up what is left to buy. In less than two hours we wait in the dark to see what is to come."

(Compliments of Philip Rizk at Tabula Gaza.)

As we sit, we're at an impasse of what is to be done with Gaza (and Hamas). Talks in the Knesset about what to do to counter those pesky Qassams, ranging from dialogue to a full-scale assault on the tiny strip. Battles in the international forum about Israel's crippling sanctions, and the usual sophistry that is only matched by the "troop-surge" illusion. Cries of boycotts, sanctions and activism from the left about the appalling conditions being inflicted on the Palestinians. Israel cuts off the power in Gaza, and now the overpopulated strip is the subject of discussion again.

Opinion pages are rife with brash bravado on what to do with those Gazans. None has ever fit the mold of the Orwellian-reality that we live in today than this beauty from the Jerusalem Post.

Titled "Hamas's dupes", the editorial is cynical in its conception that aims to deflect the blame of Gaza's turmoil on Israel. With a leading EU representative condemning Israel's "collective punishment", it perceives to depict the EU as an ally of Hamas all because it simply did what all the human rights organisations do: urge Israel to cease its seige on the Gaza Strip. The article has no shame; for instance, this particularly laughable sentence:

"Israel obviously has no interest in causing suffering of any kind in Gaza, and every interest in encouraging Palestinian development, absent the war Hamas is waging against Israel."

Israel has not only prevented any kind of development in Gaza (see Sara Roy's book The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-Development), it has made more offensives in the last week that created more casualties. It is responsible for the sonic booms, the invasion of airspace, army raids, border closures, and now the limitations on fuel, gasoline, hospital supplies and food, and we're meant to believe that they have "no interest in causing suffering of any kind in Gaza", when they admit that doing these things will make them suffer. Ehud Olmert summed it all up in his latest rant:

"But we have no intention of making their lives easier... as far as I am concerned, every resident of Gaza can walk because they have no gasoline for their vehicles, because they have a murderous regime that doesn't let people in southern Israel live in peace".

Straight from the Prime Minister's mouth: they are not going to make their lives easier. But you would not know it if you took the Jerusalem Post's point of view.

They continue to labast Hamas and its failure to curb the Qassams. Hamas has not been able to stop it because of its own pressure internally; Hamas made the fundamental mistake of joining the PA, and now is no longer seen as a grassroots resistance movement that it once was. Other factions are pushing it to reject all claims to ceasefire, especially since Israel has not relinquished one bit at any core issue. This is what Hamas got for taking part in phony elections? That's a lesson learned in the Middle East political game. And now Hamas will be seen as being soft, or perhaps another Fatah that abandons its people.

But all is not lost here:

"There is, moreover, no greater act of "collective punishment" than randomly firing missiles at the homes of innocent civilians."

How many times are we going to potray Hamas as the only ones guilty of such a crime? Despite at the articles insistence at Israel's goodwill of "uprooting not only every settlement, but also cemeteries and the security strip along the border between Gaza and Egypt", Gaza is still in complete Israeli control.

"Gaza is occupied, and with greater brutality than before. The fact that it is more convenient for the occupier to control it from outside has nothing to do with the intolerable living conditions of the occupied...

In the last two months, Israel killed 224 Palestinians, 62 of them children and 25 of them women. It bombed and assassinated, destroyed and shelled, and no one stopped it. No Qassam cell or smuggling tunnel justifies such wide-scale killing. A day doesn't go by without deaths, most of them innocent civilians."

It is all the more pathetic that hot on the heels of this editorial comes another EU official expressing regret at the EU's treatment of Israel. What kind of treatment that is is beyond my understanding. As far as I can remember, Europe has been slow in every part of the issue, quick to get in the same line as the US, and in other aspects, colludes with the two powers in the destruction of the Palestinians. Sure, they say good things; but those good things don't matter when you are powerless to do anything about it, no?

"There has been a large misunderstanding in recent years between Europe and Israel. And Israel is justified in its concerns. For too long, Europe has put too much blame on Israel for lack of peace with the Palestinians. We, as Europeans, should have understood Israel's concerns sooner,” said [Frano] Frattini."

Talk about a Hamas idealogue if you ever had one. In it, Frattini also concluded that the sanctions on Gaza are not a war crime, that they criticised Israel unfairly, and that "Europe's attitudes towards Israel is changing", ie that it's harder and harder to criticise them because of a backlash. It bears relation to Omar Barghouti's final words:

"It seems European elites are currently determined never to oppose Israel, no matter what crimes it commits."

Even if it commits the egregious crime that created the Geneva Convention in the first place. As we have it, people with logic are seeing that this hardline will only make things worse and not better.

"There has never been a more urgent need for the international community to act to restore normality in Gaza. Hungry, unhealthy, angry communities do not make good partners for peace."

Dror Ze'evi noted in his piece that Hamas was more than willing to have a ceasefire in exchange for open borders. It's a very enlightening read, ensuring the futility of an attack that will only enable the hardliners that Israel attempts to remove from Gaza. Hamas offered a period of quiet for 20-25 years. That's amazing! Israel's answer?

"The Israeli officials we presented these messages to rejected us with contempt."

So much for its intention for Gazans not to suffer. But the powercuts, the gas shortages, the border closures only is reinforcing what Palestinians were stressing a long time ago: that Israel wants them removed from the land, and this is the way they go about doing it. Make their lives a misery so they will want to leave the land. And that is why Gazans are getting pissed off; some may even find redemption in punishing their oppressor. Hamas is offering something that might deter this battle of finality:

"Gaza is home to a regime that, despite its violent takeover of the Strip, represents many of its residents and is also supported by many in the West Bank. Hamas’ Gaza rulers are indeed different than West Bank rules and are uninterested in a historical compromise with Israel, but they are interested in shifting the conflict from the battlefield to the diplomatic field and are making logical proposals. We should listen to them."

With the usual hubris, the JPost editorial finds no equivalence with Israeli and Palestinian suffering. Sderot suffers from the barrage of Qassams; their residents never asked for that? "What have the citizens of Sderot done to Gazans or Hamas?" It ridiculously asks. What did 35 percent of civilians killed in 2007 ever do to Israel? How many Sderot residents were claimed by Qassams (two)? "This is the lowest number of Israeli civilian casualties since the beginning of the Intifada." What about 31 Gaza children killed in 31 days? Is that Hamas's fault too? What did they ever do to Sderot or Israel? Be a Gazan?

Of course there is no equivalence. Gaza is totally obliterated. That is "life as usual". I leave with a quote from Lenin's Tomb:

"Life as usual. What does that look like, I wonder? It wouldn't be starvation, fuel shortage, water shortage, disease, regular raids, blockade and occupation, would it? It would? Ah. Alright so."

The Burning Issue

2008-01-20T12:12:00.000-08:00

In amongst the hoopla, there have been more than one key instances indicating how important the Israel/Palestine issue is to today's Western society, and more appropriately and acurately, to the Presidential elections that is set to begin shortly after all the candidacy races that is hotly contested all through the major swing states in the US. Annapolis is receding as a relevant summit, and its importance is being severly undermined as time progresses in the occupied territories, and the West Bank is being further corroded into a tiny slivet of a contiguous region. But that has not stopped all the vibrant rhetoric from being regurgitated between the party players, ie, President George W Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Quite a remarkable achievement is that Bush has went out of his way to (attempt) pressure Israel into compliance of the former Road Map and the revised version called Annapolis.

"Bush, when asked about the outposts, said simply and directly, "The outposts, yeah, they ought to go. Look, we've been talking about it for four years. The agreement was get rid of outposts, illegal outposts, and they ought to go."

What was also remarkable was the fact that Bush himself acknowledged that the Palestinian refugee issue had to be addressed (for once), but his solution has been far from the consensus that has been agreed upon by the international powers outlined in UN Resolution 242. Bush declared that "Palestinian refugee families should be compensated, rather than returning to former homes in what is now Israel". This is defiance of Resolution 242, which charges that only the refugees can decide on gaining compensation for lost land. In crude terms, Bush has asserted that there is no relief for the refugees languishing in huts and camps except for the fact that they will gain money for their loss. They take their land, deny their existence, and pay them off as if they will go away with a hefty bribe; and this is Bush's magical solution to solve the refugee problem, even though it is more than evident that most of them want to return to their past homeland. Although the statement does indeed bear responsibility on Israel for creating the refugee status, it falls far short of direct recognition of the catastrophe, even bypassing the justice that the Palestinians are entitled to after their extirpation.

"On the Israeli side, that includes ending settlement expansion and removing unauthorised outposts."

But the US is the main funder of those pesky settlements. It would be funny if the consequences were not so serious. And then Bush went his way to another Mideast nation to talk about democracy there too.

Not to be outdone was our very good friend Ehud Olmert, parroting the dovish-line whenever the big bad Bush comes around to criticise Israel. Even though Olmert seems to have gone through some changes as of late (maybe a little too coincidental as the timing of the Winograd report and Bush's lameduck status), many of his policies are reflecting his very brutish style when he was mayor of Jerusalem. Olmert says good things, but it's not being represented where it counts. "Olmert told the cabinet earlier Sunday that it is a disgrace that Israel hasn't taken action to remove unauthorized outposts", juxtaposed with what a Peace Now spokesperon told Israel Radio that "since Olmert took office, not a single outpost has been dismantled. Olmert should stop acting like a commentator and start taking action against illegal outposts."

Olmert is doing a courageous job trying to balance a lopsided scale (the right being the heavyweight). He is pushing his coalition to the brink with his insolence, with Barak breathing down his neck and now Lieberman quitting the Knesset over Olmert's attempts at negotiation. What a silly gesture indeed, but somewhat alarming since any negotiation with the Palestinians is deemed a threat. This is the attitude that prevails in the Israeli sector. There is a right (Olmert), and then their is right of the right (Barak). Then you have Lieberman, who's only difference is the fact that he openly states what the main objection is: removal of the Palestinians. But Olmert need not worry if he is in need of support: Gideon Levy outlined what would be a peace coalition that could help swing Olmert's words into Olmert's deeds. That is, if he truly is serious about all of this.

Because we've been through this track before. And it is a lesson that is learned the hard way when you are a Palestinian. Looking ahead, it's hard not to be skeptical. The facts are showing that Bush really is inept, as he is in his final year, and now powerless to be any kind of effectual. Olmert can give lip-service (and he's doing it well) and sit idly by until the new President is elected, and then we can go through this motion for another four years. Because back in 2004, you would not have seen Bush say such things against Israel; it would have jeorpardised his chances for re-election. And now there's no reason for him to toe the line, so he does what he thinks might give him a better reputation than the one he is carrying as of right now. Too little, too late? Perhaps, but if any progress is borne from this, then maybe it's more than welcome. I certainly enjoy seeing Presidents and politicians excoriate the occupation, even though their words mean nothing without action.

So why no action? Former President Jimmy Carter was the most outspoken proponent of the Palestinian cause (still to date, and that was almost thirty years ago), which cost him dearly. Bush's dad tried to mediate a more balanced approached (even though it was less than balanced), and he was removed. Reagan was Israel's greatest ally, and he took two terms. Clinton kept quiet on the issue until his final year. Bush junior is doing the same. Do we have a problem here?

We're recycling images of past peace processes. Just like Oslo, we're seeing more violence and building of houses under Annapolis, when we're meant to be seeing the exact opposite to help "build confidence".

"Dr [Mustapha] Barghouthi presented data showing that Israeli militarykillings of, and attacks against, Palestinians have soared by 100% since Annapolis, confirming an intensification of Israeli military violence against the Palestinian people even after the meeting on 27 November 2007.He highlighted that the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed in 2007 had risen to 40:1, up from 30:1 in 2006 and 4:1 from 2000-2005.

Barghouthi also focused on Israeli settlement expansion and their refusal to dismantle any existing settlements... maintains 133 settlements in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) which have population of 447,500, and which are equally illegal under international law. Moreover, Israel continues to build in 88 of the sesettlements.

Barghouthi stressed that settlement expansion is being facilitated by Israel's 'Roads and Tunnels' Plan."

All the while Gaza is crushed daily, Hamas is derided, and we're getting numbers that Israel slaughters children, whom are viewed as "terrorists". We get "firm opposition" from settlement blocs in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and yet Israel continues with its new construction.

"The neighborhood's [of Maaleh Hazeitim] initial construction provoked an international storm in September 1997, and the United States pressured Israel not to go ahead with the plan. The pressure was rebuffed by former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and backed by Jerusalem's mayor at the time, Ehud Olmert."

Who else could stand up against the US and defy their criticism? We should not forget here that this is in direct violation of international law. We should also not forget that the US has the power to stop all of this construction. We should also never forget that actions like these should be accounted for. We should never ever forget that the Palestinians have a right to self-determination, and new settlements around East Jerusalem will destroy their right that any other person (rightfully) demands. Israel has to be stopped; Bush has already said so, Olmert says so, past politicians and Presidents say so; why has this not been solved?

As we near apartheid with Jewish only roads, the burning issue that is preventing any progress here is because of the Israel Factor, or the Lobby. Yes, it's contested from the left, right and the centre. But it exists, and it is far from any normal lobby here. It has a great deal of clout, and it has plenty of supporters in where it counts. It is in many combinations, such as sympathy and allegiance, as well as just plain cowardice, but the Israel Factor is what is halting any US politician from castigating Israel. They openly admit it also.

No other country could brazenly pride themselves with such bravado of power over another government. Also, no other country really has so much at stake at the Presidential race than Israel. In the most liberal newspaper in Israel, they have a section called "the Israel Factor". Here they table out who is best for Israel's interests. Not surprisingly, Guiliani is number one with Clinton a close second. Obama is ranking a 5 (while it was much lower about two weeks ago), and one of my favourites from the past Chuck Hagel got a lowly 3.5. It's easy to see how the rankings is determined: Hagel's description is "The Senator for Nebraska believes that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to bringing about Middle East peace." That ranks low. The high flyers are very pro-Israel, ie hawkish. So we get more of the same. No big changes here.

These are our best candidates to control the Israel-Palestinian issue. Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney, Huckabee. Arrgh. They do not differ much. It's more or less the same. For instance, here's Obama's recent track record on Israel/Palestine:

"During the past two years, however, Obama has largely taken positions in support of the hard-line Israeli government, making statements virtually indistinguishable from that of the Bush administration...

Obama has insisted “we should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests” and that no Israeli prime minister should ever feel “dragged” to the negotiating table...

Obama acknowledged the reality that that “nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people,” as a result of the stalled peace process he has since placed the blame for the impasse not on the Israeli occupation but on the Palestinians themselves...

Obama rushed to Israel’s defense [during the Lebanon War], co-sponsoring a Senate resolution defending the operation. Rather than assign any responsibility to Israel for the deaths of over 800 Lebanese civilians, Obama claimed that Hezbollah was actually responsible for having used “innocent people as shields.”

The senator’s press spokesman did not respond to my subsequent requests for more credible sources. This raises concerns that an Obama administration, like the current administration, may be prone to taking the word of ideologically driven right-wing think tanks above those of empirical research or principled human rights groups and other nonpartisan NGOs.) Indeed, Obama’s rhetoric as a senator has betrayed what some might view as a degree of anti-Arab racism. He has routinely condemned attacks against Israeli civilians by Arabs but has never condemned attacks against Arab civilians by Israelis."

Stephen Zunes also indicates that the Lobby is responsible for Obama's shift that "it’s quite reasonable to suspect that pressure from well-funded right-wing American Zionist constituencies has influenced what Obama believes he can and cannot say." This is the best we can expect from all the Presidential hopefuls?

How about another one? Huckabee? The Israel Factor ranking has him at 6, and a reletive unknown with his policies on Israel-Palestine. Well, look no further as he is now getting in bed with the rest of the cronies for Israel. Philip Weiss shows an exchange he had with Wolf Blitzer "in which he calls for an Israeli state in all of Mandatory Palestine, from the Jordan to the sea, and there's enough room for the Arabs in Arab lands." Sounds more like the resigned Lieberman rather than a Presidential hopeful.

What about Clinton? She supports the embassy being moved to Jerusalem. That's a no-brainer.

This, my friend, is the major indicator of how things will be in the future. It is "the issue that dare not speaks its name". Here is Justin Elliott on Mother Jones:

"In nine of the 11 debates, the terms Israel, Palestinians, and Gaza were either never uttered or were mentioned once or twice peripherally. For instance, Joe Biden said at the October 30 NBC debate that Pakistan has missiles that can reach Israel. The two exceptions were the November 15 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, where Bill Richardson, unprompted, briefly outlined his ideas for a two-state solution, and the December 4 Democratic radio debate on NPR, in which moderator Robert Siegel posed the single question about Israel of the past 11 debates. Unfortunately, the query was effectively avoided. Excerpt of Edwards and Obama dodging, after the jump.

"When we do things that policymakers in
Washington may think are rational, like very strong support of Israel, that also
upsets a lot of those 1 billion Muslims you've described. How would you, Senator
Edwards ... answer the complaint that the U.S., in its support of Israel, is so
pro-Israeli, it can't be an evenhanded, honest broker of matters and is
anti-Muslim?"

Edwards proceeds to ignore the question, makes a point about Ahmadinejad and says to improve relations with Muslims we must "help make education available to fight global poverty." He makes no mention of Israel/Palestine. Siegel then turns to Obama. The senator says we need to close Guantanamo and talk not just to our friends but to our enemies. He, like Edwards, doesn't touch the Israel issue. To their credit, Dodd and Kucinich do a much better job at engaging.

So in the past 11 debates the grand total of references to the Gaza Strip is zero. Considering that Israel is our biggest ally in the Middle East and the biggest recipient of U.S. aid in the world, isn't it about time the candidates were asked what they think of our ally's destructive policies in Gaza? Will any moderator have the courage to pose the question?"

Effectively removed has been Gaza, and it's slowly being that apartheid of the West Bank is the normalisation of relations. The Palestinian state is the one determined by Israel, not by both countries. Deal with it. The big talk is just alot of bark; the politicians have no bite. And because of the stranglehold that percepetions of Israel/Palestine and its pro-Israel henchman has on Washington's balls, we're doomed to see more recycled images for another four years. How much longer can we suffer such horrific stories of occupation? How much longer can the Palestinians live as refugees with no home and no country? How much longer can we tolerate those who fund settlements and give support to what is a major bloc towards justice? How long are we going to stay silent while Palestinians are being pushed over the edge of destitution? How many more lives will it take until we say enough is enough?

This is the burning issue: the Israel Factor is one that determines policies, and one who determines a candidate's job or status. They can differ on so many issues domestically, or even on Iraq, but we can always count on one thing: they will always play favourites to the Jewish state. The lessons of the past cannot be forgotten. Take them on at your own perile.

Another slip for Olmert?

2008-01-07T19:01:00.000-08:00

Just before Annapolis, Ehud Olmert gave a nice shock to the world when he made a statement that was all but taboo. It was quite earth-shattering; or it should have been, since it was the Prime Minister of Israel who went where no American politician was willing to go (besides an ex-President) and give credence to an apartheid analogy. Back then, Olmert made the summit of Annapolis quite the curtain call, and made the two-state solution the existential solution for Israel to remain a Jewish state. I shall remind us of what he said because it is an iconic moment:

"He [Olmert] warned of a "South African-style struggle" which Israel would lose if a Palestinian state was not established."

Olmert must be aware of the growing awareness of the "apartheid" struggle, hence his connections of Annapolis, peace processes, settlements, security and the Palestinian state being tied to the one-state solution. It didn't take a genius to clue in that with all the pitfalls of past "peace processes" that only caged in the Palestinians and even to some extent, made the occupation worse, that Palestinians both inside and outside the territories would be calling for a system that would abolish the ideology that discriminates against them and prevents them from having any rights as a human being. How long could the Palestinians trust that Israel and the US had their best interests at heart? We're heading towards the forty-first year of this "ephermeral" occupation, and with no end in sight.

But Olmert has gone a step further, this time even admitting that Israel is "not honouring its commitments" under the protocols of Annapolis; ie deconstruction of settlements or the cessation of settlement activity. Remember to bookmark that article, because it is very scarce that any politician would admit any wrong doing, let alone one that has the stakes riding on the Holy Land. Here he is at his most blatant:

"Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, called continued Israeli construction in West Bank settlements a breach of Israel's obligations under a peace plan revived in the US city of Annapolis last year.

Olmert's remarks, which appeared in an interview with the Jerusalem Post newspaper on Friday, came days before George Bush, the US president, arrives in the region.

He said: "There is a certain contradiction in this between what we are actually seeing and what we ourselves promised."

"Obligations are not only to be demanded of others, but they must also be honored by ourselves. So there is a certain problem here."

We're making great strides here and yet taking five steps backwards in the process; Israel is acknowledging that they have yet to hold up their part on the "peace" bargaining, and the onus is not SOLELY on the Palestinians to achieve some form of security blanket for Israel's kooks. With the largest military contingent and an array of nuclear weapons in the region completely dominating against a stateless, army-less and sometimes government-less people, it really is beside the point, is it not? Because Abbas the pretender cannot even keep a strangehold on his own territory, let alone attempt to gain control of Gaza. Or is Gaza simply left off the picture?

The history of the conflict is reaching new parameters now, and Olmert is taking bold steps where no Israeli leader has dared to travel: not only has there been some form of acceptance of a Palestinian struggle, it also translates that there is a justified nationalism within the Palestinian community, hergo recognition of a Palestinian right to exist. In stark comparison to past leaders who simply refused to believe that a Palestinian existed at all, or those archaic no non-sense apologists who still declare Jordan a "Palestinian state", the year 2008 may well be one of many strides and yet one of many disappointments: The strides because lately there seems to be a good turn about of opinion, not only here in Canada and the States, but also some in Israel. The disappointments because the Zionists are not going to give up without a fight, and it's a fight that they know all too well and play very dirty. We need no reminder of who they are but they still hold the high card here. Just a peak into any comment section in Ha'aretz, the Jerusalem Post, or even the NOW Magazine here in Toronto and it's plain to see that old perceptions are still hard to let go. But what's more stunning is the way the Palestinian perspective is creeping into these publications. An interesting article appeared in NOW detailing the truth about Canada Park, which was built on Palestinian land in the West Bank and subsided by your Canadian taxpayer. (Very) Slowly, the public is getting some facts about Israel's occupation that was not available to them a decade ago (unless you did some extensive research of your own).

Juxtapose these with the fact that the boycott campaign is still getting an audience, the human rights reports on the Lebanon War last year condemning Israel for its actions (as well as Hizbollah, mind you), and other little reports that are slipping its way into the internet is really unmasking David for the Goliath he really is. It's not easy to keep all of this under wraps, and with every threat into Gaza leaving more Palestinians dead, the occupation is not quite so "benevolent" as Israel's supporters would claim it to be. In Ramallah, another life is in critical condition with three shots to the back of the head by the IDF. And this is the West Bank, under Abbas' soveriegnity. Because it is Fatah-controlled, therefore Hamas is left to dry, as two of their members were taken by Israel. This is the way it will be under the current blueprint for two states: Israel imposes its will, the Palestinians have no choice but to be humiliated.

But what is the most damning are those settlements. And I hate to be a broken record but it is this attempt to "create facts on the ground" that ultimately will lead to another intifada or another disaster, whichever comes first. Making apartheid is something that should not be tolerated, and it seems that most Western nations are complicit since there is no outcry or no cessation of funds that continue to pay for these violations of international law. Whether it be the United States, Canada, Australia or Great Britain, there is a trickle that connects us with the occupation in one form or another, however minute it could be. It's as simple as your tax dollars finding its way into the Middle East or a purchase from the biggest bookstore in the city. I'm not equating this ignorant act from one that overtly supports Israel, but if we do educate ourselves maybe we can help this boycott a little, create a fiasco over those settlements that is strangling the Palestinians fight for a state.

Why such an opposition towards these settlements? Not only are they illegal, but they are infringing on every part of Palestinian life. They are deleting the agriculture, the economy of the Palestinians, surrounding their villages into enclaves, cutting them off from other parts of the West Bank (especially East Jerusalem) and finding their water going to the Jews. It has gotten so bad that the Israeli government is withholding the publication of the Spiegel Report for fears that the conclusion would not be pleasing for Washington. (Missing the point entirely since Bush has been silent on this issue and basically legitimised it a couple of years back.)

"Military sources said that the report has been kept secret to avoid embarrassing Israel's relations with Washington.

Under the internationally-backed roadmap, Israel must freeze all settlement activities and vacate settlements constructed after March 2001.

The Spiegel report is seen as the largest database ever compiled by state authorities on settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian lands.

It reveals extensive building in key settlements, often on privately owned Palestinian lands.

The report's data came from the Civil Administrative and other Israeli government agencies as well as from photographic sorties carried out by civilian aircraft.

The report was compiled in response to incomplete figures provided by the government on settlement activities in the occupied lands."

The Report revealed what was known to everyone on the ground; so this was not news. However, due to the censorship of the authorities, it is all the more damning that these settlements are the focal point of the occupation, one that is displacing Palestinians, usurping their land and making them refugees in the process. Attempting to deflect the issue, it only makes the case against the settlements stronger. All along, this activity has been relatively tolerated by the West, leaving Palestinians to fend for themselves, putting faith in brokered agreements that was meant to alleviate the hardship of a land stolen. Oslo, Taba, Camp David, the Road Map; this all led to more settlements. The Palestinian state was a desired 22% of historic Palestine; now they are left with half of the West Bank with the Jordan Valley in complete Israeli control. Jeff Halper said that Israel will have "two Eastern borders". That's unheard of in today's civilised society.

Now with Olmert admitting that Israel is not doing its part for the sake of peace, we've got no option now but to demand that Israel cease the construction of "extended" settlements. To find out the toll the Palestinians are taking thanks to the settlers, read this enlightening article by Janine Roberts. She witnesses how the farmers are subjected to the settlers, how the Israeli soldiers are reluctant to remove them or accost them when they do harm to civilians, and how the police are arriving too little and too late. When the settlers are removed, "the young settlers reoccupied it as they had done every other time". The army would evict them only for the settlers to return at night. They have a free reign on the land.

"Everywhere I travelled around the West Bank, from Nablus in the north to Hebron in the south, from Jerusalem to Jericho... Israeli’s army aggressively patrols every Palestinian town and village seemingly at least once a week – and everywhere the Israeli settlements were busily expanding and establishing new outposts on Palestinian agricultural lands."

And there have been announcements that more settlements will be built. How is this meant to help bolster Abbas? How is this meant to implement Annapolis or the Road Map? Or is this all a sham that is leaving the Palestinians with no option but to accept a Bantustan? Is Olmert serious about a Palestinian state? Is he serious when he speaks of an existential threat for Israel when a one-state solution is argued?

Talking about it is one thing; we can all speculate on why Olmert would be dovish, when most of the Knesset is quite hawkish, or rather, very Zionist to a little Zionist. We are now living in times where Zionism is severely questioned, the Palestinian question is getting a debate or even a say in the conflict in some areas, and Zionists across the board are trying to fit their affinity for a Jewish safe-haven but trying to salvage some form of humanism when it comes to treating their counterparts. They want their Jewish state but yet they want to be free of discriminating Arabs. It simply cannot happen. They cannot have democracy and have a Jewish Israel. It's either one or the other.

Olmert has the power to do something about it. Bush has the power to do something about it. The settlers like to believe that God is on their side or that the politicians are too weak to stop them. The army is with them on that issue; Olmert is stuck in an imbroglio with the Winograd Report. Barak is still Barak. But, as Mark Elf has asked, "are the settlements building themselves?"

Yes. It can be done. Even that war criminal Ariel Sharon dismantled settlements in Gaza. Olmert, who may not have Sharon's temerity or outreach, could really be an opportunist and take it so we can have a dialogue for justice. This issue is not going to fade away. It permeates throughout the world and it won't stop until there is justice. Stop the settlements, Olmert, if you are truly serious about Annapolis. If not, then you doom that summit all too premature (even though most knew it was a failure before it begun). It's refreshing to hear your words, but the settlements don't build themselves.

Celebrities and the Palestinians

2007-12-29T09:55:00.000-08:00

These are interesting times: Christmas rolls on by along with Eid and Hannukah, as well as other denominational holidays too that doesn't want to be left off the dialogue here. The spirit of giving, goodwill and cheer as the new year nears and it is time to start afresh and make new bridges and leave the past behind us, except in the city of Christ's birth, as Christmas was canceled thanks to the continuing encroachment of Israel's land confiscation. It's amazing that a city so famed throughout the West, as well as a story that I grew up "worshipping", is turned into a spectacular ghetto, with people caged in and a wall that splits the ancient Bethlehem into smithereens. This is the place of Jesus, the celebration that Christmas is meant to be about, and his birthplace is destroyed.

So where are all those bastions of human rights, ie those celebrities who do nothing but good in the name of humanity? I mean, we all know the US is silent when it comes to these pertinent issues, but where's that famed "do-gooder" Angelina Jolie who has topped a celebrity Reuters poll for top humanitarian? Sure, the suffering in Africa is a good cause, no? Where did all that LiveAfrica aid go to, I wonder? Is Bono listening? Or too busy praising that war criminal Tony Blair, who's the Middle East peace envoy? Where's George Clooney and his comrades when you need them? Yes, the Save Darfur campaign is gaining strides, even though it's a conflict more complex than they dare to imagine, or even investigate. They claim that they are confronting hotly contested issues (ie Iraq) but stop short when it comes to the Holy Land. Here Clooney accuses his opponents of attempting to "destroy his career"; last I checked the Iraq war is not very popular, and if you want destroyed careers, check out Norman Finkelstein.

And it's not for lack of evidence either. There are scores of human rights reports by Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. A review of all these concludes that Israel is in direction violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. So why all the silence here?

I think we know why. Perhaps touching this issue would be career-icide for any who oppose it. Have a gander at one Susan Sarandon. Here we have an outspoken opponent of the Iraq War (No surprise there. Who isn't nowadays?), and "likes to speak out when she sees an injustice", but it all is torn to shreds when she wines and dines at Lev Leviev's jewellery store. The focus of some controversy, apparently Sarandon's advocacy for justice is limited to those which really aren't very politicised, or aren't romanticised by Hollywood (think of Blood Diamonds) thanks to the newfound affinity for Africa's plight. As far as the occupied territories goes, all rules, or more appropriately, all human rights are thrown out the window.

Silverstien describes Leviev as a man who "has become wealthy in his chosen profession by trafficking in Angolan diamonds." Also adding that he participates with the Land Redemption Fund, "which purchases land under false pretenses from Palestinian owners in order to transfer them to settlement ownership". No human rights violations there, correct?

Sarandon has been targeted by the Jewish Voice for Peace, Adalah-NY and Jayyous’ Land Defense Committee. In addition, two Palestinian villages have joined the call for Sarandon to join their campaign against the settlement intensification. Despite her explanation that she has no "ties", her act has her on the side of a certain Alan Dershowitz who had to show his unified support for settlement activity and its proponents.

How interesting considering that the Arab League has recently denounced that settlements are the main blockade towards peace, and many have (correctly) labelled that it is Israel's expansionism that is effectively destroying the possibilities of a two-state solution.

"It is now clear that the settlements issue will destroy any hope of peace and will break the course of Annapolis."

And both Sarandon confesses to be an advocate of justice as well as Dershowitz who has been noted on many occasions (thanks largely to himself trying to convince himself) that he is in support of a two-state solution. The evidence is damning: settlements means no Palestinian state. It has been Israeli policy since the aftermath of the 1967 war. All the Palestinians have left is a Bantustan, Israeli-style. It's is all the more magnified when you get the attitudes of the Orthodoxy who squat on Palestinian land.

"In my view, Israel from the Mediterranean to the Jordan Valley is a Jewish state," said Goldstein, 48, a mechanical engineer and air force veteran who is mayor of a group of settlements that form the Gush Etzion Regional Council. "Its lands are earmarked first and foremost for Jewish citizens."

Meaning there is no place for the Arabs, both within the occupied territories and in Israel proper. Why do you think that the Israeli Arabs continue to be vilified and "they only draw a meager 1% of media coverage – most of it negative in nature", despite the fact that they make up 20% of Israel's population? With no voice at all, it's easier to turn them into something less human or into caricatures, or "demographic bombs". Hanan Ashrawi lays it out for all to see:

"To me, the demographic argument is by definition racist. I think Palestinians have the right to independence, statehood and self-determination as a legal and political imperative. It is not an issue that has to become a threat or that we formulate in response to somebody else's position."

So now we have a state that wants to remove Palestinians, and is making them into second-to-ninth grade citizens, all with the inherent racist ideology that Israel wants the occupied to recognise as legitimate, something that gives Israel the stamp of approval that what they do to the Palestinians is okay because Zionism says so? Sarandon is in bed with all of them when she is silent amongst the picketers at New York, doing business with a known funder of settlements. So much for all her "justice" talk. It's easy to denounce slaughters when the atmosphere is so chic, but the Palestinians are still negatives in the celebrity quo. Sometimes even Adolf Hitler gets a repreive from them.

Sure, "evil" is interpreted within the eye of the beholder. I'm positive those settlers who make life a living hell for the Palestinians are doing "good" in their eyes, or those IDF soldiers are doing what's good for their racist state when they slay an innocent civilian. But what is one meant to say when they get "giddy about killing"?

"In fact, most people must be trained to disregard the humanity of others in order to be capable of killing them."

I guess it's a "good" thing to see yourself as superior to your fellow man. With all that hubris, it's harder and harder to testify that what they are doing is not a deliberate act of aggression with a goal to scare and terrorise. Or when a soldier pens a song about the celebration of killing Iraqis, does he know he's doing the wrong thing? Let's not get lost that Hitler was the only one capable of "evil". Would Will Smith have been forced to apologise if he directed those comments against the IDF and the US soldier? Would he be wrong to say it? Or do we just get backpatting from our celebrities who want to "bring our soldiers home" and save them from the mess they created? Perhaps we'll just make a terrible movie about it.

What would be remarkable is if these "heroes" of ours actually made themselves effectual and did something of character. This is not meant to minimise the terrible conditions that the African continent is in; in fact, aid is not enough to help them. If Jolie and her gang truly wanted to stop the bleeding, they would speak out against the policies that cripple their economy, and the corporations that help benefit from their destitution and robbery. Conflicts diamonds, war for oil, AIDS, and corruption are only part of the problem. Do not give a get out of jail free card to those G-8 nations who only want to keep Africa in its current state of disaster. They bankrupt the system that has the profits channeling into the fatcat's pockets.

Or what if they made an issue out of Israel's settlements? Now that would be true courage. Think of the examples the residents of Bil'in are setting; these are people who are left with nothing and who are up against a state that is backed by the biggest superpower today. They stand up to Goliath.

And not to be forgotten are those members of Adalah-NY. Their persistence is creating a stir that is more than welcome. And their chants are quite a thing of genius. Let's show our solidarity. (To the tune of "Dreidel, Dreidel, Dreidel".)

“Apartments for Jews only, Discrimination, sure! He thinks Palestine's the problem, and Apartheid is the cure!
Oh boycott boycott boycott, Don't buy Leviev today Funds crime with all that profit, Who needs diamonds anyway?
Then one cold November eve, Leviev came to town He put a store here in New York, But we will shut him down!
Leviev your crimes are showing, Your deeds are getting hard to hide No matter what you call it, We say NO to apartheid!”

The Ultimate Disparity

2007-12-19T15:54:00.000-08:00

Henry Seigman, director of the US/Middle East Project, and a man who served as a senior fellow on the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations from 1994 to 2006, penned quite an eye-opening editorial about Annapolis and its all too lucid disparity between the occupier and occupied. Seigman lifts the veil that is shielding what the (common) onlooker might have missed: that the Palestinians have nothing to concede to the Israelis, and it's the Israelis who hold all the cards. Israel is the superpower in the region, holding the monopoly on nuclear weapons, as well as a highly sophisticated army that arguably unmatched in the Middle East. Here Seigman makes the point that a peace process that "depends on Palestinian willingness to match Israeli 'concessions'" is inconceivable given the "imbalances between the two."

"This demand is stunningly insensitive to the fact that Palestinians are a people under occupation. As such, they have little to offer Israel by way of concessions, other than their continued subjugation and dispossession."

It is true that Palestinians have little to give, and barely anything to bring to the table. The insistence that Abbas curtails violence is rather duplicitous, considering how little power he has over the Palestinians, and besides the extreme outcome of a major police state that would resemble what Israelis do to the occupied Palestinians, this is sheer nonsense, and a total impossibility. Seigman again:

"That demand constituted the mother of all oxymorons, since no Palestinian leader could end violent resistance to the occupation in the face of Israel's refusal to reveal how much Palestinian territory it intended to retain."

All too reminiscent of the US demand that Iraqis prevent other Iraqis from inciting violence, all the while being occupied and having their rights infringed upon day-in, day-out. And there really is no blueprint laid out by either party on how they choose to meet this "demand", especially since the separation barrier is destroying Palestinian livelihood, making agriculture a thing of the past, and as well as boxing in the Gazans, making life there quite unbearable. Unemployment is rapidly increasing, and that's expected when most of the jobs have been terminated thanks to the border enclosures. So what do the young do? Easy recruitment against the occupier, who they perceive to be the the major (or sole) body responsible for their unfortunate circumstance which has been labelled a "catastrophe" in some humanitarian reports. It's important to underline the fact that Palestinians are occupied. Putting the onus on the victims to put an end to the atrocities is simply illogical and imbalanced. The Palestinians have no control over their lives; it's the Israeli occupation that dictates their behaviour and how their day will turn out, especially in Gaza. Here's how Uri Avnery has described the situation:

"He [Ariel Sharon] did not leave the inhabitants of the Strip any possibility of leading a normal life, but turned the territory into a giant prison. All connections with the outside world were cut - the Israeli navy cut the sea lanes, the border with Egypt was effectively sealed, the airport remained destroyed, the building of a harbor was prevented by force. The promised "safe passage" between the Strip and the West Bank was hermetically sealed, all crossings in and out of the Strip remained under total Israeli control, to be opened and closed arbitrarily. The employment of tens of thousands of Gazan workers in Israel, on which the livelihood of almost the entire Strip depended, was terminated."

And this lesson is repeated in the West Bank, where Palestinians are meant to hold some form of autonomy over their lives. Here's a report from B'Tselem:

"A survey conducted by the Israeli military and published by leading Israeli daily, Yedioth Ahronoth, found that a quarter of soldiers serving at checkpoints in the West Bank perpetrated or witnessed abuse of Palestinians. In response, B’Tselem, said that the numbers are shocking, but not surprising. The organization commends the military for initiating the survey, but states that physical and verbal abuse of Palestinians by soldiers, particularly at checkpoints, has long become routine. In spite of official condemnations, the military does not do enough to ensure accountability and to deter soldiers from engaging in such behavior. According to B’Tselem, most soldiers who harm Palestinians are never held accountable. Law enforcement authorities place numerous obstacles on Palestinians who try to complain against security forces personnel and only a small minority of complaints result in charges against those responsible for abuse."

Everything is subjected to Israeli control. If Israel truly wanted some true form of security, it is easily within reach, as has been mapped out time and again by withdrawal and negotiation back to the pre-67 lines as a final border. But this is a state that wants to have its cake and eat it too. It's a two-state solution without consultation from the Palestinians, or what Akiva Eldar has said to be "a two-state solution the way I want it." As Seigman has clearly shown, it's a situation that has been all too favourable for the bully, rather than the beaten, as "one would be hard put to identify a single concession Israel has made to the Palestinians."

The case of Har Homa is the epitome of this intransigence. Even though Israel is required to cease new settlements, the plans for Har Homa continue apace, with just an askance slap on the wrist from the US, with Condoleezza Rice saying the construction "doesn't help build confidence" in Annapolis. Totally unbeknownst to Rice and co., not alot of people had confidence in the summit in the first place. Here's from the latest Settlement Report from the Foundation for Middle East Peace, written by Geoffrey Aronson:

"The renewed attention to the continuing construction at Har Homa, an East Jerusalem settlement begun in the heyday of the Oslo period, illustrates Israel’s continuing refusal to surrender its settlement ethos, even as Prime Minister Olmert laments the price Israel will pay as a result."

Philips Weiss digs in the case of Har Homa and is still aghast at the silence from the international community over the expansion of "Greater Jerusalem", a place that is never to be relinquished by the Israelis:

"Israel considers this [Har Homa, a suburban hilltop landgrand by Israel] part of East Jerusalem. That's nuts. Here is B'tselem's map of the separation fence showing that Har Homa is south of Jerusalem, near Rachel's Tomb, which is of course cordoned by high concrete walls."

East Jerusalem is the intended capital of an impending Palestinian state: without it, there is no contiguity, no sovereignty, no autonomy, no economy; hence, no state, only a figment of one, or what many have been calling a Bantustan. Yes, the dreaded apartheid comparison rears its ugly head. But in some cases, this is much worse, since the Israelis do not depend on the exploitation of Arab labour; slowly but surely they are encouraging "voluntary transfer", a newspeak term that would put George Orwell to shame.

The story of Hani Amer, a Palestinian farmer in the West Bank, (seen here on a documentary called Walls of Shame)is quite remarkable. Amer's house is surrounded on all four sides by the separation barrier and the "fence", as well as a settlement, and has him in complete mercy of the Israelis. Despite incentives for him to leave which did not persuade him to, threats inevitably continued. And yet Amer resists just by existing in his tiny home. Amer's and his farming colleague's plight are immaterial to the Israelis and the Americans but his is an apropos symbol of the ultimate disparity between the two dialectics here that Seigman has spoken of.

Olmert has not indicated that he is willing to take on the settlers, and there has been no real gestures of condemnation from Rice or the US media. But who is to stop this? Weiss rants on:

"This is an American issue. There will be no Palestinian moderation, and no peace in the Middle East, till these insults are sanctioned by us. Nothing will change until the U.S. government does more than lip service in opposition. Nothing will change till Democratic politicians turn their backs on the religious left and condemn the colonies. Nothing will change till the media make these crimes an issue as they made Saddam's crimes an issue. Nothing will change till the self-styled "secular" American Jewish community separates itself from the macho religio-militarist nutbags on whom they have projected their Warsaw-ghetto injuries."

I would have to reluctantly agree, and I have stated it in numerous posts in the past: it is up to the Americans, and to a very lesser extent, the Western intellectuals and commoners of today's society. Yes, that includes Canada, Australia, and Europe. But the be-all end-all equation lies with my neighbours to the south. It really is the Americans that can stem the tide of Israeli aggression. By its human rights record, Israel is not a party to be counted on to do the right thing. Settlements, barriers, checkpoints, torture, collective punishment and annexation: it's been forty years going on forty one, when is this occupation going to end?

Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter published a provoking piece insisting that the US re-evaluates its relationship with the Israelis. He states:

"Israel's current policies, rooted in ethnic and religious hatred, are the antithesis of tolerance...

Driven by xenophobic paranoia and historical grievances, Israel is embarked on a path that can only lead to death and destruction. This is a path the United States should not tread. I have always taken the position that Israel is a friend of the United States, and that friends should always stand up for one another, even in difficult times. I have also noted that, to quote a phrase well known in America, friends don't let friends drive drunk, and that for some time now Israel has been drunk on arrogance and power. As a friend, I have believed the best course of action for the United States to take would be that which helped remove the keys from the ignition of the policy vehicle Israel is steering toward the edge of the abyss. Now it seems our old friend is holding a pistol to our head, demanding that we stop interfering with the vehicle's operation and preventing us from getting out of the car. This is not the action of a friend, and it can no longer be tolerated...

Israel has grown accustomed to American largess, to the point that it is addicted to an American aid package that is largely responsible for keeping the Israeli economy afloat. This aid must be reconsidered in its entirety. The day of the free ride must come to an end. The United States must redefine its national security priorities in the Middle East and position Israel accordingly. At the very least, American aid must be linked to Israeli behavior modification. The standards America applies to other nations around the world when it comes to receiving aid must likewise apply to Israel."

Only when the US punishes (by withholding aid) the Israelis could this stagnating dilemma by moved to something that progresses towards justice for the Palestinians and a lasting peace for the Israelis. The Sinai example is one that many supporters of the "re-evalutation" cite as an effective policy that could deter Israel from acting like a drunk "friend holding a pistol to our head".

Yes, the barriers are immense, but they are not impossible to break down. We can all take part and write to our respective representatives as well as being vocal in our community. Miracles won't happen overnight. Gaza is suffocating. The Palestinians are seeing less than half of the 22% that was proposed back in 1967, which is almost a third of what they were given during the Partition agreement sixty years ago. Surely this disproportion is one that is hard to accept but yet the Palestinians are willing to live with it but ONLY with sovereignty.

True, there are many complexities with the two-state solution, but nothing that can't be resolved through discussion and negotiation (that includes Hamas). But with the things the way they are, there is little hope left for two states and a battle for one will arise from its ashes. Without an increased pressure on Israel, things will get much worse before it can get better. For Amer and the rest of the Palestinians, how much worse can they take?

After Annapolis

2007-12-10T19:27:00.001-08:00

So the Summit has come and gone, and with it plenty of conclusions, most of them very negative (from the reporters and scholars who matter). Although many have been too quick to denounce the outcome of Annapolis, especially considering it wasn't really a discourse that was meant to have any finality, more resembling a precursor towards negotiations: a negotiation to negotiate in the future, there really is still time that Annapolis could amount to something positive rather than the typical failed processes that we have experienced time and time again.

Yes, Jerusalem was off the table; correct, the separation wall wasn't discussed; and in fact, nothing about the dismantlement of settlements was even on the minds of Bush and Olmert, but the reaction of Olmert has been quite earth shattering. How about the Israeli Prime Minister? I have to hand it to him: even with all the pressure that is amounting against him, the debacle of the 2006 Lebanese War, and now the paralysis of stalemate that has the Knesset calling for his head, he has the audacity to evoke the apartheid analogy, the exact same one that Jimmy Carter et al has been vilified for. This is Israel's PM; who would be bold enough to label him an "anti-Semite"? Here are those famous quotes:

"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished."

That was a quote from a Ha'aretz article back in '03. Clearly Olmert is not a stranger to the happenings of Israel's separation policy.

"He warned of a "South African-style struggle" which Israel would lose if a Palestinian state was not established."

This is what many of Israel's best dissidents have been saying for years: that Israel's path is only contributing to its own destruction. Just as South Africa refused to see the truth and confronted their "terrorists" with only more aggression and repression, Israel has stepped up its own form of censorship and regression against Palestinians who resist, and Israel's more famed detractors. The many violations of human rights, numerous UN resolutions ignored, and behaviour that borders on impugnity, backed by the biggest superpower today, only give credence that Israel is a pariah state. Omar Barghouti insensatively reacts at Israel's sustained mentality of impugnity:

"Israel realises that its vast influence over Congress automatically translates into substantial, albeit indirect, influence over Europe. Israelis, therefore, do not particularly care about European public opinion."

It has the US in its "back pocket". The biggest bully is your protection, so the brains can do what he wants, wiggle his nose at his enemies, and get spoiled in the process. They will claim the entire land, and leave the trash to the Palestinians, literally.

And what of Gaza? Were they not part of the original Palestinian state? I guess with Hamas around, no one is part of this process from Gaza. Israel just continues their assaults, and even threatens to escalate the conflict into a full-scale invasion of Gaza, to stop those pesky Qassam rockets. Any chance of a ceasefire despite the fact that Hamas wants to collaborate in the sham? What if

"It is time for Israel to try something new. Something that requires more courage than long-distance assassination and the obsessive use of the word no.

As we have seen with our once-arch enemy Egypt, and our longtime enemy Syria, if you can kill them, you can talk with them...

Either way, they can forget it...The Qassams will continue unless and until we engage Hamas in talks over a cease-fire, the first step in a process that may take generations - mutual recognition of Israel and Palestine."

Maybe not? More invasions occur. Hamas continues to be isolated, making people forget that they were once the elected party to represent the Palestinians, not Mahmoud Abbas.

So the theatre of handshakes took place. Why not say it for what it was? It was a process that wasn't meant to succeed. It was something that was fluff, pure dribble that would amount to nothing, only speculation and nothingness. Daniel Levy said the "expectations were very low". Keep them low and you won't be disappointed. Everyone was disappointed that this process took place anyway. Phyllis Bennis put it best:

"Myth #12) Annapolis was a failure.

If we understand Annapolis for what it really was, it may prove to be a great success. The Arab regimes can go home with transcripts of their own speeches, whether bluster or statesmanlike, and show their people how they stood up to Israel and the U.S., and how they helped the Palestinians. They can then show more willingness the next time Bush asks them for fly-over rights, for base rights, for political support. And Condoleezza Rice got her photo-ops. Her legacy, too early to say.

But based on its real, however unacknowledged, goals, Annapolis may turn out to be a great success."

And so is Annapolis: it's too early to say. The deadline is for the end of 2008. That's a long, long time. Failure is the in cards, but from the looks of things, a turn around could be at hand. Since when could we actually listen to an Israeli PM resort to the apartheid analogy, a comparison so odious in the right that it has took the respect away from President Jimmy Carter? Phillip Weiss recently blogged about his experience at an Israel Policy Forum leadership meeting.

"There was throughout the evening the strong feeling, and what a testament to the IPF this is, that Yes there is an Israel lobby, and it is many of the people in this room, and the time has come to take your foot off the breathing tube of the Palestinians. It was a wonderful evening because here was a strongly Jewish and Zionist audience but it was willing to hear from Arabs and Arabists. There was no noxious whiff of stinking neoconservatism the whole night. God bless. There was also the strong sense that without the American Jewish community allowing Washington to become more independent, this moment will be lost. Israelis and the Palestinians cannot do this on their own, they require muscling intervention."

Discussion is opening up. Zionism is on the decline. And the Knesset is being confronted with racism reports that embarass the members. Annapolis could still amount to something if more of this is welcomed.

More on fake Archeology

2007-12-03T19:02:00.000-08:00

A good piece was featured on Counterpunch, written by Eric Walberg, as he stifles through many reputable scholars of theology. In it, he shows the damning failure of Israel's archeologists of "unearthing" new breakthroughs that an ancient empire of Israel existed and hence laying claim to today's Jews that Palestine is solely their's because of the roots to this remnant of a mythical history. This claim has so much resonance that it ignores the centuries that Jews chose another place for a home and vast heritage of "Mohammedans" and Arabs that called Palestine their home.

"Biblical archaeology has expanded rapidly in the past half-century as a new academic field in search of both justification and funding...But it is now clear to the most respected Christian, Jewish, Muslim and/or secular archaeologists that this supposedly scholarly, rigorous and objective discipline, with its methodology of taking biblical passages and digging and poking away in likely places, looking for proof of what they say, has been a big failure, if not a hoax. While the financial benefits of tying the Bible to archaeology have increased, historical and intellectual benefits have just as rapidly diminished.

Two egregious flaws lie behind this. Firstly, it is somehow overlooked that both the Old and New Testaments were first written down only in the fourth c BC (mostly from the third c BC) to the first c AD by Hellenised Jews, i.e., over a relatively short historical period of approximately four centuries, the culmination of Hellenism as it flourished in the Middle East up to and including its manifestation under the Roman empire. The references to "old Israel" of the distant past are directed at the enlightenment of people living at that time, and have much more to do with events at that time than some distant, mythical history which was never recorded in stone, so to speak, but was rather passed down from generation to generation much like other peoples have passed down the legends of their origins -- orally, embellished by talented composers and poets. Furthermore, the OT and NT are closely integrated in structure, themes, and underlying philosophy, and to reject one part as heretical (as the Jews do the NT) or another part as a mere harmless introduction to the real text (as do the Christians concerning the OT) is not only unprofessional, but foolish and even subversive.

Secondly, the worldview of those recording the Biblical legends, stories, poems, philosophical essays, etc differs radically from ours. It was a product of Hellenism, where true reality is a Platonic ideal, recognising the ineffable quality of life, our overwhelming ignorance, and the fractured, shadowy nature of daily life as experienced by our senses. Our Aristotelian, materialist outlook, sees reality in hard, cold facts which we directly perceive and duly record, where the only truths are what can be physically demonstrated and/or refuted. This is quite alien to the mindset of the Biblical composers, writers and scribes. Taking the Bible literally, as a materialist recounting of "history" is a classic example of misplaced concreteness. To its credit, there is no word for history in ancient Hebrew, reflecting its origins in the pre- Aristotelian worldview.

To go a step further and assume that this bogus history is the "real" history of mankind, with the history of the thousands of other peoples taking a back seat, is just not on. The reality of the Bible is transcendent, universal, traditional, intuitive and emotional. To profit from it, we must rediscover this worldview, where myth is the "reality" and very essence of our lives, and the dunya is a lame, pale version of the sacred myths guiding us. Karen Armstrong, who has written widely on the monotheisms and the loss of myth as a vital part of our worldview, argues in The Bible: a biography (2007) that fundamentalist religion, be it Islamic, Christian or Jewish, is a response to and product of modern materialist culture, which undermines the role of myth as a vital element in the social matrix. Myth is reduced to its literal meaning, i.e., Jerusalem is a physical location at a fixed point in time, not a metaphor for the City of God, transcending the limitations of the physical world...

Whatever the true origin of the Jews, the Bible talks of an "old Israel" -- a United Monarchy which supposedly flourished from 1000-600 BC in present-day Palestine, with Saul, David and Solomon as great kings of a magnificent empire, and a spectacular temple, built by Solomon, as the centre of worship of the Jewish god Yahweh. What do archaeologists tell us? A century of sifting, scrubbing, sorting and debate has produced no evidence of Jerusalem as a large city, let alone the centre of an empire. It was at most a minor trading and olive growing town. No doubt a small state existed in the ninth c BC, one of several -- Moab, Edom, Ammon, even one we could call Israel, with Samaria as a likely "capital", and with the revival of Phoenician shipping, Palestine indeed began to flourish for the first time, but on a modest scale, as an inter-empire outpost, the home of many Semitic and non-Semitic tribes...

The flourishing of Palestine supposedly ended with God's punishment of Israel and the destruction of Samaria. The goodness of the Judean kings, Hezekiah and Josiah, delayed Yahweh's anger and Jerusalem's destruction. But the day of wrath, so it goes, brought the Babylonian army to destroy Jerusalem, marking the end of old Israel in the sixth c BC. What do archaeologists tell us? Again, there is no historical evidence for this lovely story -- Palestine was all the time just a backwater, subject to division between Assyria, Mesopotamia and Egypt as their empires ebbed and flowed...

Never was there an ethnically coherent Israel, and according to Thomson, neither Jerusalem nor Judah ever shared an identity with Israel before the rule of the Hasmoneans in the Hellenistic period of the 3rd-1st cc BC, coincidentally, when the legends were first written down. Ironically, the Samaritans, scorned by Ezra's (and today's) Jews, are the most likely Semitic ancestors of the historical Israel."

No Commitment to Annapolis

2007-12-02T18:40:00.000-08:00

A good indication at who is really the driving force of blockading peace is indicated in this little slip-up by both Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

"An effort will be made to hold accelerated negotiations in the hope that it will be possible to conclude them in 2008... However, there is no commitment to a specific timetable regarding these negotiations."

This kind of elusion is best reminiscent of the American procrastination of setting some guideline for troop withdrawal, using the "when Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down" round-a-bout that always seems to keep US occupation a permanent fact. And as temporary as Israelis wanted the occupation to be back forty years ago, I doubt people will buy that line now after four decades of oppression and second-class status for Palestinians (especially Gaza since the "disengagement", which only gets worse and worse).

But what would be necessary for the Israelis to set up a timetable or a deadline for this "peace"? You guessed it: Palestinian concessions.

"Both Livni and Olmert said that from Israel's point of view, the most important aspect of the understanding was that any future agreement would only be implemented after the Palestinians fulfilled their security requirements under the road map."

And what are those requirements? Tony Karon laid it out in his blog:

"The Roadmap, of course, requires Mahmoud Abbas to dismantle Hamas. Fat chance. And the Israelis know it better than anyone — Olmert reassured Israelis straight after the conference that Abbas is weak and ineffective. In other words, this whole process is hypothetical.

Taking down Hamas and uniting “moderates” against “extremists” is the purpose of the Annapolis process, not moving the Israelis and Palestinians, and the wider region, closer to peace."

The Palestinians are meant to bend over backwards to help fulfill Israel's security requirements and then Jerusalem must not be negotiated over, as well as settlements have to remain, as even compensation efforts to evacuate these nationalist lunatics is being opposed in the Knesset. The fate of the West Bank is under Israeli control, and no sovereignty is conceded to a Palestinian authority. What you see in the West Bank now is what we're going to see as a potential Palestinian state under Annapolis. This is an area that has been split up by settlements, barriers and road blocks, pockmarked with soldiers and checkpoints and dissected by Jewish highways and a separation wall, leaving the proposed area for a Palestinian state to almost nothing. Here's what Sonka Karkar has said of the usurpation of the land that is going to be legitimised thanks to the US backing:

"Certainly, any Palestinian state proposed today would not be the state envisaged by the architects of Oslo. Israel’s Wall, the settlements and the Israeli-only roads have made sure that any Palestinian state will be forever compromised by the Israeli colonial settlement enterprise...

The way Israel has set it all up now with settlements, restricted roads, military reserves and no-go zones on 93 percent of the Palestinian West Bank seems much more like a settler state where Palestinians will only have semi authority in the enclaves allotted to them than the sovereign Palestinian state everyone is talking about.

Should the Palestinians acquiesce to some semblance of a state on the fragments of land remaining in these latest talks, they would find themselves in an impossible situation – completely subject to Israel’s whims and utterly and indefinitely dependent on humanitarian aid from the international community."

That is what is required for Israel's security: the total dismemberment of Palestine, their identity, their history and their future; the annihilation of their nationalism and their rights to humanity. In order for Israel to be recognised to "exist as a Jewish state" is to propogate the Palestinian's total deletion from today's society. They must accept that they will forever be ruled by their colonial aggressors and give up their fight for equality.

Will the international community be fooled by all of this? Will Abbas continue his path to becoming the Palestinian satrap for the Empire? We will all sit tight for this to pan out.

Annapolis and Iran

2007-12-02T11:50:00.000-08:00

Gary Sick was a guest columnist at Rootless Cosmopolitan and revealed that the Annapolis summit is a way to schmooze back the Arab regimes into the peace process and getting their influence to counter the Shi'ites of Iran. Hence why the need for Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to all agree on the Palestinian question and be on good terms with Israel and more importantly Washington, and create a good alliance against the evil of today, Iran.

Also important was the shift in gears, more or less towards diplomacy rather than hubris against Iran.

"Over the past several weeks, there has been a quiet process of apparent concessions and small gestures of approval between the United States and Iran in Iraq. General Petraeus told the Wall Street Journal that Iran “made promises at the highest levels of the Iranian government to the highest levels of the Iraqi government. These were unequivocal pledges to stop the funding, training, arming and directing of militia extremists in Iraq. It will be hugely significant to see if that’s the case.” Only a few weeks earlier, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had noted that the discovery and use of improvised explosive devices (IED) of suspected Iranian origin in Iraq had declined, along with the general decline of violence associated with the U.S. military surge and new counter-insurgency tactics.

In between these two announcements, the U.S. military released nine Iranians who had been arrested and held for many months. Even more unusual was the fact that the release of these men, now officially labeled of “no continued intelligence value,” had been reviewed only a few months earlier and rejected. Stranger still, they were identified as members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and its special intelligence division, the Qods Brigade, which had just been officially designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. Shortly thereafter, the Iraqi government announced that a fourth round of direct talks between the United States and Iran would take place in the near future.

So, what is going on here? Obviously it is still very early to draw any hard conclusions. A U.S. military spokesman recently linked Iran to a bombing in Baghdad by a splinter sect of the Mahdi Army, so perhaps this episode of good will was only a tiny deviation in an otherwise consistent policy of hostility. Or perhaps this was a goodwill gesture not to the Iranians but to the Iraqis who had been insisting that the Americans release their Iranian hostages and proceed with the Iraqi-sponsored talks. Or perhaps this was merely an odd concatenation of events, purely a coincidence."

Yes, it is the work of one Condoleezza Rice,

"who is showing herself to be a consummate realist, particularly as the neo-conservative ideologues increasingly find themselves without government employ and quarantined from the policy process, and as the Office of the Vice President watches its policy influence evaporating almost by the day. I am particularly intrigued by the fact that administration policy toward North Korea and the Palestinian issue have effectively reversed in the past year (regardless of pro-forma administration claims that the policies remain steady and unchanging)."

Annapolis is still doomed.

"Debasing" Facts in the air

2007-12-02T11:15:00.000-08:00

Despite the fact that Nadia Abu El-Haj has been granted tenure at Columbia University, the attacks still come in, even from the 'liberal' Ha'aretz. Bari Weiss has once again disputed El-Haj's ability to qualify for tenure because "the only book upon which she was granted tenure" was her groundbreaking study Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society, which was a winner in the 2002 Albert Hourani Book Award, "which recognizes outstanding publishing in Middle East studies".

Weiss accuses El-Haj of totally discrediting science as a non-partisan study but subjected to the biases of the people who make it.

"To argue that people, rather than evidence, create archaeological fact, El-Haj is forced to abandon the methodology of science altogether."

And not content with El-Haj, Weiss brazenly applies her criticism to the late Edward Said.

"El-Haj is hardly the first to employ this approach. Perhaps its most powerful trailblazer was Edward Said, who argued in his landmark 1978 book "Orientalism," that when dealing with Asia, the West was necessarily politicized. Said alleged that even the most well-intentioned scholars, if they were Western, were Orientalists, actively constructing a mythical "Orient" out of their own political motivations as the exotic, feminized, other. For Said, there is no such thing as objectivity in scholarship, and those who claim to strive for it may well be the ones with the most to hide."

Is it not accepted that there are biases all around? People can profess to be absolutely non-partisan but we are a product of our society, whether negatively or positively. Israel is so polemic that nationalism permeates to the very last bum. How else can it be explained that such nationalist fervour is a pinnacle of the settlement structure and violence we forsee today and yesterday? Or how archeologists are in such a hurry to prove that ancient Israel does exist that it is justified to plow more Palestinian homes and heritage sites in order for evidence to be shown? Certainly El-Haj's book has been vilified and praised (but what book on the Holy Land ever is free of politicisation nowadays?) and it is up to the reader to conclude for themselves whether the book is sound or not. Weiss cannot accuse the usual anti-Semitic line since El-Haj has been free of any form of it.

Weiss does let it slip:

"Let's be clear: Is it in the interest of today's Zionists to find evidence of an ancient Israelite kingdom in the Land of Israel? Of course. But recognizing such interest does not preclude the possibility of the application of fair, professional standards, and the ability of archaeologists, regardless of their ethnic group, to uphold them in good faith."

But during the tenure controversy, El-Haj had plenty of support, "particularly in her field, who say her book is solid, even brilliant, and part of an innovative trend of looking at how disciplines function." Yes there are opponents, such as Alan F. Segal, a professor of religion and Jewish studies at Barnard, who was quoted as saying "her work is not good enough".

“She completely misunderstands what the biblical tradition is saying... She is not even close. She is so bizarrely off.”

And we all know how much claim biblical tradition has. Michael Dietler, an anthropology professor at University of Chicago said,

"She is a scholar of the highest quality and integrity who is being persecuted because she has the courage to focus an analytical lens on subjects that others wish to shield from scrutiny."

Basically El-Haj has done the unthinkable and that is to challenge Israel's sole claim to the land of Palestine. By attempting to showcase that their facts are more contrived that evidence would suggest, then it's best to derail her studies, however praised it really can be. Weiss concludes:

"El-Haj's work does not remind readers of the need to be skeptical of the influence nationalism can have on the interpretation of archaeological facts. Instead, she has written a book condemning the notion of facts themselves. It is for this reason that those who care about the future of the veracity of facts - and not just the future of Israel - should take serious notice of her promotion."

Or more to the notice that her promotion is a step backward for the academic police of Campus Watchers.

Can't stop gloating

2007-11-26T18:09:00.000-08:00

Yes, it has happened. A very minor detail but a long awaited result for many of us Aussies out there. But finally, after for what seems like an eternity, John Howard is on his way out, and thank god the clown has been taken down (to paraphrase an earlier article of my two years ago). I don't know exactly, but I believe Howard has been in office for four straight terms and this would have been a fifth one. It has been almost a dozen years as the head man of Oz, and we're still paying for every minute of it.

A much better schadenfreude is written by Glenn Greenwald. It's difficult not to smile at such a shellacking for Howard but the man did not really win plenty of friends amongst those in the left and even some in the centrist spectrum. And as Greenwald so poignantly noted:

"[But] nothing captures the core corruption and dishonesty of John Howard -- and that of other blind supporters of the war in Iraq generally -- quite as vividly as a May, 2003 speech he delivered to the Australian parliament, in which Howard hailed the Greatness of George W. Bush and praised Bush's "Strength and Determination" for having led the "American-led coalition" to "Decisive Victory" in Iraq...

The ignominious defeat of John Howard had many causes having nothing to do with his disgraceful pronouncements on Iraq (though his triumphant opponent, Labor's Kevin Rudd, did pledge to begin withdrawing Australian troops from Iraq). Nonetheless, it is still satisfying to witness such a well-deserved ejection from power of one of the last political leaders slavishly loyal to the disastrous Bush/Cheney/neoconservative war agenda."

Since my departure from Australia, it has been rather difficult to remain focused on Australian domestic politics. Kevin Rudd is still quite unknown in my outlook, but I am always skeptical. It is the Labour Party: they're no saints either. But he seems to be on his way to showing some backbone. As I am writing this, Rudd is planning a withdrawal from Iraq and signing the Kyoto Protocols. Now that's quite a change from the last twelve years.

Consequently, Mahir Ali describes Rudd something closer to a neo-Tony Blair or a mini-John Howard.

"In fact, Rudd’s main strategy throughout the campaign was to reassure all and sundry that in key areas of policy a Labor government would not be remarkably different from its predecessor. This was largely intended as a gesture towards voters who had grown sick and tired of Howard and his ministers, but saw no particular reason to take issue with the Liberal administration’s social or economic policies."

But Rudd's two gestures has certainly put him in the right direction so far. And a third gesture to the Aborigines of Australia is a big step towards the healing. You cannot picture Howard doing something of high temerity as this apology.

Ali's article is a good synopsis of what took down Howard.

"...arguably the biggest factor was an insidious piece of legislation dubbed WorkChoices. Its purported aim was to enhance workplace “flexibility” - which is neoliberal code for further empowering employers at the expense of employees. The Howard government, despite its best efforts, was unable to disguise the fact that this was an attempt to snatch away more of the basic rights that workers had won through long and arduous struggles during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Howard was also wrong-footed by his failure to anticipate growing popular concern over global warming: until some months ago he was an outspoken sceptic, insisting in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that the jury was still out on the likelihood as well as the causes of climate change. He eventually switched his tune, but remained adamantly opposed to ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, which reinforced the impression that the primary motivation for his unconvincing conversion lay in political realities rather than a change of heart.

The nagging suspicion has also lingered that his blockheadedness on Kyoto is not so much a matter of conviction as a measure of Howard’s obsequiousness towards the Bush administration. This embarrassing relationship is epitomized by Australia’s involvement in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. A vast majority of the Australian public has consistently opposed this role, but this factor didn’t seriously hurt Howard electorally in the past, partly because the country’s small contingent suffered no combat casualties."

Howard had totally failed in most aspects of winning the public, and by pandering to a Bushite ladder of rich vs poor, it contributed to his spectacular downfall. The polls had him slipping in the eary months of the year, and despite some jargon that attempted to hide the discontent, Howard was deseated and with him the rejection of a ruling class that wanted to increase the growing divide between upper and lower classes. Yes, Rudd has not done anything to change it yet, and he may not do anything of major to note that could make a difference to the normal taxpayer, but it is a good feeling (an ephermeral at that) to see the back of Howard and his bullshit.

And I cannot help but rub it in, Howard was unable to even win his own seat of Bennelong.

So long Howard, and thanks for all the memories.